Preamble

The House met at half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LUTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Monday next, at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

London Polytechnics (Societies)

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Education if he is aware of the ban upon religious and political societies within the London polytechnics; and whether he will make a statement about them.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Minister of Education if he will take steps to remove the existing ban which prohibits the forming of societies for political or religious purposes in London polytechnics.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): The schemes regulating these polytechnics forbid the use of the premises for political, denominational or sectarian purposes. Political debates in any general debating society are, however, allowed. I cannot make fresh schemes unless the existing Trusts have failed. In the present case there is no evidence of such failure, and I have not received any request from the governing bodies to amend the schemes.

Mr. Johnson: Does not my right hon. Friend think that this nineteenth century ban upon free speech is a rather shabby advertisement for our Western liberal way of life? How does he think the status of technical education can be raised among students when they are denied amenities for the formation of and discussion in societies, as in the universities?

Mr. Tomlinson: I have no objection whatever to religious or political societies, and I have encouraged them in some cases, but the fact remains that under the present schemes of the Trusts such societies cannot be organised. But that does not mean that the Trusts have failed in carrying out their duties.

Mr. Fletcher: Do I gather from my right hon. Friend's reply that he is against the continuation of this ban, and, since the polytechnics are very largely provided or supported by public funds, will he not initiate action with the governing bodies so that this completely out of date ban can be ended?

Mr. Tomlinson: My duty is to see that a new Trust is made provided one has failed. Although they do not allow these things, I cannot, in the circumstances, come to the conclusion that the Trusts have failed. If the governing bodies themselves initiated action, I should be quite willing to consider them.

Commander Noble: The right hon. Gentleman said he has had no representations from the governing bodies. Has he himself had representations from the students?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, I have.

Sir Richard Acland: Would not the Trusts fail if they were not supported by public funds, and could not we move, when the Department's Estimates come up, to reduce the amount of the Estimates by the amount of the funds?

Mr. Tomlinson: No, they fail in their purposes only if they do not carry out the purpose for which they were formed.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is this restriction on free discussion effected by moving the adjournment of the debate?

Mr. Tomlinson: It is not a question of the restriction of discussion but of the formation of societies.

Mr. Janner: Would my right hon. Friend indicate to the trustees his feeling and the feeling of the House as a whole, so that they may make application in the appropriate place for a revision of the Trusts?

Mr. Tomlinson: No. I think the people concerned will see the questions and answers in this House, and form their own conclusions.

Durham County Council (Appointment of Teachers)

Miss Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Education whether he will now make a statement on the results of the conversations between the National Union of Teachers and the Durham County Council.

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Education whether he will now make a statement concerning the recent conversations between representatives of the Durham County Council and the National Union of Teachers about the appointment of teachers in Durham.

Mr. Tomlinson: No agreement was reached at the meeting. The Durham local education authority did not see their way to abandon their practice of questioning teachers about their union membership. In the result a situation arose which constituted a definite threat to the education service. I have, therefore, taken action against the local education authority, as I warned them last November I should, under Section 68 of the Education Act, 1944.

Miss Ward: In view of the fact that this is a free Assembly supporting the Minister in his action, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, for the purpose of the record, he will publish his letter in HANSARD, SO that it may be a guide to those who come after this House of Commons?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes. The letter can be published in HANSARD. It has already been published in another place.

Mr. Hollis: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the statement—the alleged statement—of a member of the Durham County Council, made subsequent to this letter, that the letter does not forbid answering the so-called obnoxious questions? Will the right hon. Gentleman make it categorically clear whether he agrees with that interpretation or not?

Mr. Tomlinson: That is something which has not been brought to my notice until this moment. I should like time to think about it before commenting on it.

Mr. Blyton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Middlesex County Council ask

questions about political faith, and as the National Union of Teachers have not the guts to take action against them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—yes, it is true—is he prepared to issue a direction against Middlesex County Council?

Mr. Tomlinson: In circumstances similar to the circumstances that have already arisen in Durham I will direct the Middlesex County Council or any other local authority.

Miss Horsbrugh: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the fact of his sending this letter, and the words that it contains, do not now show that he regrets the decision of the council, which he, and those who sit behind him, refused to regret on 13th March?

Mr. Tomlinson: I regret a lot of things about this business. My principal regret is that the interests of the children seem to be taking third, fourth and fifth place instead of first.

Mr. James Hudson: Does the possibility of action against the Middlesex County Council or any similarly acting county council depend only upon initiative taken by the National Union of Teachers, or can any step be taken by the Ministry where the Union fail to carry out their obligations?

Mr. Tomlinson: My responsibility is to see that the administration of education is maintained.

Following is the letter:

3rd April, 1951.

Sir, I am directed by the Minister of Education to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of April 2nd, 1951, and to state that he has noted the information contained therein.

The Minister recognises that the Authority have not proceeded to implement their original intention of serving dismissal notices on their employees who did not produce by a prescribed date evidence of membership of a union or appropriate professional organisation. The procedure, however, which they have been following recently of asking candidates for appointments to teaching posts at their disposal whether they are members of such a body and the modified procedure which it is now proposed to follow instead are no less objectionable. For whether it is put to all the candidates for appointment to a particular post or only to the candidate who is considered to be most suitable for appointment, an inquiry about membership of a union or other appropriate organisation must be presumed to be a determining factor in the Authority's choice. Otherwise there would be no point in asking it.

The Minister warned the Authority in his letter of November 22nd that if, as a consequence of their action the education service was, or appeared likely to be, endangered, he would be obliged to intervene. Since a considerable number of teachers in the Authority's service is now, as a direct consequence of the Authority's action, considering resignation from that service, there is a definite risk that the Authority will be unable to discharge their statutory obligations under the Education Acts.

In all the circumstances the Minister is satisfied that the Authority have acted and are proposing to act unreasonably with respect to their power of appointment of and control over teachers. Accordingly, the Minister, in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by Section 68 of the Education Act, 1944, hereby directs the Authority to refrain from taking any steps to ascertain whether applicants for teaching posts at the disposal of the Authority are, or intend to become, members of a trade union or a professional organisation.

I am to request that the receipt of this letter may be acknowledged and that the Minister may be given an immediate assurance that the Authority will comply with the direction forthwith.

I am, Sir,

Your obedient servant,

(Signed) R. N. HEATON.

Authorised under Section 3 (2) of the Education Act, 1944.

Special Schools, Cornwall

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Education how many defective children in Cornwall are now awaiting places in special schools; and what are the prospects of such places becoming available.

Mr. Tomlinson: In January this year, 212 handicapped pupils were awaiting places in special schools of various types; of these, 147 were educationally subnormal. The authority intend to open by the end of this year a new school for educationally sub-normal pupils which will take 46 boarders and 14 day pupils, and a boarding home for maladjusted girls. They are seeking places in special schools outside the area for the pupils suffering from other types of handicap.

Mr. Hayman: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask him if he will do all he can to see that special places are available for these children?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir.

Brigadier Peto: Would the Minister include children who are partially blind in the classifications he has mentioned?

Mr. Tomlinson: The partially blind are already included in that category.

Finance and Administration

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Education whether he will now arrange for the appointment of a Royal Commission or other body of inquiry to consider the financing and administration of public education in relation to the present rating and grant system.

Mr. Tomlinson: No, Sir.

Mr. Hollis: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the very meaty representations made by the National Union of Teachers' Conference—apart from those made at other places—on this question? Whether or not the inquiry should be by a Royal Commission is of secondary importance, but will he now admit that the situation is becoming incredibly complex, and will have to be investigated in some form or another, and the sooner the better?

Mr. Tomlinson: That is an entirely different question, it seems to me.

Mr. Hollis: No.

Mr. Tomlinson: The question that the hon. Gentleman is now asking about an inquiry, relates to the statement that was made that, when the new valuation lists were ready, grants which had been fixed some time ago would need to be reviewed. That review will take place, as I said, but I doubt if it calls for a Royal Commission.

Teachers' Salaries (Assessment Errors)

Sir R. Acland: asked the Minister of Education whether he has considered the case put to him of a teacher from whose salary payment due in April there is to be deducted the sum of £5 10s. in respect of an over-payment made as a result of an error made in 1948 in the county education service; and whether such a deduction is in accordance with Government policy.

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir. Local education authorities have a statutory duty to pay salaries to their full-time teachers in accordance with the prescribed salary scales. In cases where errors of assessment are discovered it is for the


authority to decide whether it is possible and desirable for them to recover the sum over-paid.

Sir R. Acland: Does not my right hon. Friend himself feel that in cases such as this the error, if it has been made, should lie where it has been made, and not be passed on to the teacher concerned long afterwards?

Mr. Tomlinson: What I am saying is that it does lie where it was made, and that it is for the authorities, if they wish, to remedy it.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (U.K. PENSIONERS)

Mr. A. R. W. Low: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he has a further statement to make concerning the recent decision of the Government of India about taxation of pensions paid by them to residents in the United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Gordon-Walker): No, Sir. Discussions are still proceeding with the Indian Government about the administrative arrangements for the collection of Indian Income Tax on these pensions.

Mr. Low: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is only a very short time left before this decision begins to operate, to the disadvantage of the pensioners? Will he do all he can to expedite an agreement which will result in no hardship being caused to the pensioners?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the great shortage of time, and I have already instructed our High Commissioner in New Delhi to make representations at the highest levels to the Indian Government. This has been and is being done.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: How can the Secretary of State give this answer when the Treasury have already said that no hardship will be incurred by the pensioners? Is he aware that under Indian tax law at the moment 5s. in the pound, irrespective of the amount, has to be paid? How does he justify his present answer from that Box and reconcile it

with what the Treasury have already said?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: The Question put to me has nothing about hardship in it. I am, of course, aware of the proposals made by the Indian Government, but I think it would be wise not to go into detail about it while we are having these urgent talks with them.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Does the Secretary of State say that the answer given by the Treasury is still correct—that no hardship will accrue to these pensioners?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: I think the less said while I am having these negotiations with the Indian Government the better.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRALIA (ASSISTED PASSAGE AGREEMENT)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if agreement has now been reached with the Australian Government on the continuance of the Assisted Passages Scheme for families and individuals migrating to Australia.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: Yes, Sir. The United Kingdom Government and the Australian Government have agreed that the Assisted Passage Agreement which expired on 30th March should be continued for a further period of six months on the understanding that inter-governmental discussions to settle financial arrangements and future policy will be held as soon as possible and in sufficient time to enable any new agreement to be completed before 30th September, 1951.

Mr. Hurd: When these further discussions take place will the Secretary of State bear in mind the undertaking given by the Prime Minister, in the House, that all of us are concerned to assist families and persons who want to settle in the Dominions, and that a long-term agreement, not only one for six months, is desirable as giving an assurance for the future?

Mr. Gordon-Walker: Certainly, Sir, I have several times said that in the House. I quite agree.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Textile Imports and Exports

Squadron Leader Burden: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) the yardage and total value of wool cloth imported in 1950 for sale in the general categories; and from which countries the imports were made;
(2) the yardage of wool cloth purchased abroad in 1950 for sale in the British utility ranges; what was the duty chargeable on import; and from which countries the purchases were made.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): Twenty-eight million square yards of woven woollen and worsted tissues, including mixtures, valued at £11,900,000 were imported into the United Kingdom in 1950 from 26 countries within the Commonwealth and 39 other countries. No cloth is imported as utility, but licences are issued to clothing manufacturers, under certain conditions, to make up imported cloth into utility garments. The percentage of cloth imported in 1950 which went into utility garments is not known. I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a full list of the imports from each country, together with information about the duties chargeable on imports.

Squadron Leader Burden: Do not these import figures show that this country, an exporter and traditional manufacturer of cloth, is now having to import from other countries? If this cloth is comparable in value to our own does it not show that foreign countries are likely to come into strong competition with our own manufacturers in the overseas markets in the near future? Is the Minister aware of this, and taking action accordingly?

Mr. Wilson: There has always been a very considerable degree of trade both ways in woollen cloth and other textiles.

Squadron Leader Burden: asked the President of the Board of Trade the value and yardage of wool cloth, including wool mixtures, imported by the United Kingdom and re-exported to the United States of America and countries of the British Commonwealth in 1948, 1949 and 1950, respectively.

Mr. H. Wilson: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon.

and gallant Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The amounts of woven woollen and worsted tissues imported by the United Kingdom and re-exported to the United States of America and countries of the British Commonwealth in 1948, 1949 and 1950 were:



U.S.A.
British Commonwealth Countries



Sq. yds.
Value
Sq. yds
Value




£

£


1948
—
—
84,429
35,026


1949
236
112
56,503
27,022


1950
7,820
3,109
243,286
110,450

Mr. Assheton: asked the President of the Board of Trade the exports in March of rayon yarn and staple fibre.

Mr. H. Wilson: The figures for March are not yet available.

Mr. Assheton: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) on 1st March he gave the House quite inaccurate information when he said that the exports of yarn in January were 891,000 lbs.? I want to be quite certain that when the right hon. Gentleman gives the figures for March he will give it in pounds sterling and lbs. and compare pounds sterling with pounds sterling and not lbs. with £ s. d.

Mr. Wilson: I have expressed my regret, both in an answer and to the hon. Gentleman in question. The mistake was not, in fact, due to a comparison of lbs. with pounds sterling, but was a genuine error for all that. When the March figures are computed the right hon. Gentleman can be assured that they will be accurate.

Mr. Drayson: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking action to restrict the export of this rayon staple fibre or yarn and have it diverted to the home trade?

Mr. Wilson: As far as staple fibre is concerned, as existing contracts are completed, as most of them will be quite quickly, exports will be restricted in agreement with the producers to about one-third of their 1950 level. So far as rayon yarn is concerned, I gave an answer on that to the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) a few days ago.

Textile Industry, Lancashire

Mr. Assheton: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many looms in Lancashire are now stopped owing to lack of supplies.

Mr. H. Wilson: No figures are available of looms which may have been stopped for lack of supplies, but the latest available figures of the total number of looms working show a slight increase since the beginning of this year. These figures, however, do not allow for short-time working, which, I understand, may have increased slightly in rayon weaving.

Mr. Assheton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some six-loom weavers are now having to be content with four looms, and four-loom weavers with two, and so on, and that this under-employment is really rather serious?

Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman will know the deep concern we feel about this very restricted degree of underemployment compared with the large amount of under-employment that Lancashire knew before the war—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and I think he will be aware of the causes.

Mr. Assheton: Will the right hon. Gentleman realise that I am trying to discuss a serious problem, which is related to the lack of supplies of cotton and rayon in this country due to his policy?

Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, because we have discussed this many times, that the lack both of cotton, and of rayon, which is affected by sulphur, is not in any way due to the policy of the Government.

Mr. Shepherd: As the exports of cotton today, in volume, are only 40 per cent. of the 1937 figure is the right hon. Gentleman able to estimate what the effect of this short-time work will be on our already too low export figures?

Mr. Wilson: No, Sir, but the Cotton Board, who are, of course, in very close touch with industry in this respect, report that cotton looms have, in general, been very little affected by the shortage of supplies.

Squadron Leader Burden: In view of the fact that because of the conversion rate the exportable value of this staple

fibre as manufactured cloth is much higher than when exported as fibre, will the Minister ensure that this fibre is not exported?

Mr. Wilson: I agree with what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in mind. There is another Question on that on the Order Paper.

Fishing Industry (Manila Rope)

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the President of the Board of Trade how he proposes to allocate the manila rope made available for the fishing industry.

Mr. H. Wilson: The discussions with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries are still proceeding, and I am, therefore, not able to add to the information given in my reply to the hon. Member's Question of 1st March.

Mr. Marshall: How soon does the right hon. Gentleman think he will be able to make a statement on this matter; and is he giving full consideration to the inshore fishing industry?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir, full consideration is being given to that. I cannot say yet when I shall be able to make an announcement.

Mr. G. R. Howard: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great dissatisfaction is caused by the fact that foreign fishermen can buy manila rope which is denied to our own fishermen, often in the same shops to which they go?

Mr. Wilson: No, I am not aware of that.

Sulphur Supplies

Mr. Hollis: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make a statement on the expected imports of sulphur into this country.

Mr. Janner: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is now the position with regard to our sulphur supplies.

Mr. H. Wilson: I regret I am not in a position to add anything to the reply which I gave on 22nd March to similar Questions on this subject.

Mr. Hollis: Is the right hon. Gentleman not yet even in a position to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend


the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) on 22nd March, whether superphosphates are still being exported from this country during the present critical situation?

Mr. Wilson: That is another question. The Question I am now answering relates to the expected imports of sulphur into this country.

Mr. Janner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is very considerable apprehension in the hosiery industry in Leicester and the surrounding district about the supply of sulphur; and can he tell us when he will be able to say something more definite about the position?

Mr. Wilson: I am aware that there is widespread apprehension in practically every industry in the country, because practically every industry is affected by the shortage of sulphur. In spite of repeated pressure we have still had no reply from the American Government as to the supplies we can expect for the second quarter, though we have been told that we can have 19,000 tons on account.

Mr. Fort: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to keep experts who are familiar with the sulphur business in Washington until the present shortage is overcome, whether that be in a year or two years' time.

Mr. Wilson: As long as their presence in Washington is required and can in any way help to solve this problem, they will be kept in Washington.

Mr. Jennings: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the shortage of raw materials in this country is directly due to the policy of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Shepherd: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any action is being taken to obtain the sulphur sup plies available in Iceland.

Mr. H. Wilson: The possibility of obtaining sulphur from Iceland is being investigated, though I understand that no immediate supplies are practicable.

Mr. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade if the supplementary quota of 19,000 tons of sulphur which is being given by the United States Department of Commerce to meet our current production needs will be sufficient to

avoid the previously anticipated 40 per cent. cut in rayon production; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. H. Wilson: The 19,000 tons provided by the United States authorities are to cover the period until export allocations for the second quarter of the year are notified. Until our allocation is known, I cannot say whether or not the effect on rayon production will be of the magnitude previously anticipated.

Mr. Osborne: As the Minister warned the industry that there would be this 40 per cent. cut, is he aware that it will mean an increase in the cost of utility garments as well as a shortage of supplies? Cannot he say to the trade and to the nation that this 19,000 tons of sulphur will at least keep us going for the next three months?

Mr. Wilson: I said that a cut of the order of 40 per cent. would be inevitable if the allocation were not increased above 81,000 tons. Until I get a clear statement that we are to get more than 81,000 tons in the second quarter, I cannot give the assurance for which the hon. Gentleman rightly asks.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Even if the allocation of raw sulphur is sufficient to avoid this cut, would the right hon. Gentleman explore the possibility of substantially increasing the production of sulphuric acid in Germany in order to get increased supplies from there?

Mr. Wilson: We are doing everything possible, and allowing free importation of sulphur and sulphur products from wherever they may be found. It is a very long job indeed to increase the production of sulphuric acid, particularly in this country.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: In view of the low delivery of sulphur compared with what we want in the first quarter, is this figure of 19,000 tons to be taken as an advance on what we are to receive in the second quarter and as having nothing to do with the possible increase required in the first quarter?

Mr. Wilson: We all hope that this will be 19,000 tons in addition to the figure of 81,000 tons, but although we have made many representations and asked for more information for industry, in order to know where it stands, we have still had no confirmation of that.

Mr. Harrison: Will my right hon. Friend see if there are any prospects of supplies of synthetic or manufactured sulphur, so that we may be relieved of trespassing on supplies from the United States of America?

Mr. Wilson: I am not aware of synthetic or manufactured sulphur, but we are pushing ahead very fast, as I have explained to the House, with the use of anhydrites, pyrites, spent oxide and other substances.

Mr. Drayson: Will the Minister assure us that he is doing all that he can to facilitate the importation of sulphur chemicals? Is he aware that these chemicals are available on the Continent, but that the 33⅓ per cent. ad valorem duty makes the price to the manufacturers prohibitive? Will he discuss this matter with the Treasury to see if, while the shortage exists, the duty can be waived?

Mr. Wilson: This seems to be another question. Many manufacturers in this country have been buying sulphur and other products at four, five and six times the American price, so I should not have thought that the duty which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned would stand in the way of importation.

Raw Cotton Supplies

Mr. Assheton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make a further statement with regard to supplies of raw cotton.

Mr. H. Wilson: I regret that I am not yet able to make a further statement.

Mr. Assheton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the increasing anxiety about this matter? How soon will he be able to make a further statement?

Mr. Wilson: I have, I think, already stated in the House what is the allocation of raw cotton granted by the United States Government. There has been a commodity conference on cotton, but there will be no further action taken by them until the prospects for the new crop year are available.

Mr. Osborne: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the supplies of raw cotton are adequate to meet the rearmament demands?

Mr. Wilson: I have said on a number of occasions that I am not at all satisfied that the allocations of cotton granted to us, even allowing for the very big purchases which are being made in other countries, are adequate to meet our requirements.

Mr. Harrison: Has my right hon. Friend made inquiries into the possibility of increasing supplies from Egypt and the Sudan?

Mr. Wilson: We have scoured the earth for supplies of cotton and we have got increased supplies wherever they can be got.

Wool (World Requirements)

Mr. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade what official confirmation he has received from the United States Government of their intention to purchase for stockpiling purposes 350,000,000 pounds of wool; what representations he has made to them; and if he will make a statement on the effect of such stockpiling on the cost of clothing.

Mr. H. Wilson: The requirements of wool of the United States and of other countries for all purposes including stockpiling will be among the matters to be considered by the Wool Committee of the International Materials Conference which is meeting at the present time in Washington. In these circumstances, I should prefer not to make any statement on this subject for the present.

Mr. Osborne: While not wishing to embarrass the Minister while negotiations are going on, may I ask whether he has been officially informed by the United States authorities that they intend to stockpile to this extent?

Mr. Wilson: No, Sir, we have had no official intimation to this effect, though information has reached us from usually reliable channels which suggests that there is something in this story.

Mr. Paget: Is not the trouble here that the American Government have not adopted bulk buying and that, in consequence, private buyers have forced up the price?

Mr. Wilson: The world wool problem is not a question of whether it is bulk bought or privately bought, but of how much is being bought.

Goods (Price Marking)

Miss Burton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in fixing maximum prices for goods and materials, he will make regulations to ensure that all goods offered for sale bear price labels, and that the prices shown are clearly stated to be maximum and not minimum prices.

Mr. H. Wilson: No, Sir. Certain kinds of goods must already be marked with their maximum prices, but individual marking of maximum prices on all price-controlled goods would be very burdensome and would add appreciably to retailers' costs.

Miss Burton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many housewives in Coventry have written to me stating that certain traders represent maximum prices as minimum prices, and, furthermore, that the Board of Trade fixes them and that they have to be charged? Would he, therefore, give publicity to the effect that these rulings are to prevent profiteering and not to encourage it?

Mr. Wilson: I entirely agree with the statement made by my hon. Friend, and I hope that due publicity will be given to the fact that these are maximum prices and not fixed prices.

Squadron Leader Burden: When marking the goods will the right hon. Gentleman also ensure that woollen goods particularly are marked with the correct description of the fibre used in the making?

Mr. Wilson: That is another question. I do not personally mark the goods.

Imported Willows (Duties)

Mr. Henry Hopkinson: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to carry out the under taking given last year by his Department to the president of the National Willow Growers' Association to receive a case for the increase of the tariff on imported willows from 10 per cent. to 30 per cent.

Mr. H. Wilson: As the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. De la Bère), was informed in reply to his Ques-

tion on 20th March, we are always prepared to receive applications for variations in rates of import duties. In this case, however, we have not yet received a considered application for additional protection from the National Willow Growers' Association, and consequently have not been able to take further action.

Mr. Hopkinson: Is it not a fact that at present Article 3 (1) of the Anglo-Polish Commercial Agreement, 1935, forbids the raising of duties on willows beyond 10 per cent.? Will the right hon. Gentleman free his hands of this matter, so that he may consider fresh duties that may be put up to him by the National Willow Growers' Association?

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. There is the complication of the Polish Agreement. We do not, however, feel that the Agreement precludes us from the possibility of examining any proposals that may be submitted.

Newsprint Supplies

Mr. Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will allow more of the newsprint production of home mills to be retained in this country in view of the additional production of 50,000 tons annually in Tasmania which will be available to Australian and New Zealand newspapers.

Mr. H. Wilson: Newsprint capacity in Tasmania is being increased, but I am informed that no additional supplies from that source will become available this year.

Mr. Hurd: Meanwhile, will the Minister relax his requirement that 100,000 tons of newsprint must be exported from this country in the present year, and allow fair shares to our own newspapers?

Mr. Wilson: I do not think that that is a matter affected by this Question. We have discussed the export of newsprint on a number of occasions and I have made it clear that if there is any danger of further restrictions of supplies to our home market I would be prepared to go into the question of exports.

Tariff Conference, Torquay

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the President of the Board of Trade on what grounds the date of 9th May was selected


as the date before which the decisions of the Torquay Conference would not be disclosed.

Mr. H. Wilson: As I informed the House on 22nd March, in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) arrangements have been made to bring the Conference at Torquay to a close on 21st April, but the results of the Conference will remain secret until 9th May. It is necessary to have a common date in order to avoid embarrassment to individual Governments by piecemeal disclosure of the results of the Conference and this date has been chosen so as to allow sufficient time for delegations to make their reports to their Governments.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the date selected up to which secrecy will be maintained will be just at the beginning of the Whit-sun Recess? In view of the possibility that the House may wish to look at these proposals, is it not possible for them to be published a week earlier, even though the gentlemen who have been at Torquay all the winter have to expedite their deliberations?

Mr. Wilson: I will do my best to get the results published earlier. I shall have no hesitation in bringing the results of the Torquay Conference before the House, but I am assured that it is not possible to get the work completed and the printing done before that time.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the ban on publication until 9th May extends to agreements like the proposed agreement with Cuba, which was strictly outside the general agreement on tariffs and trade being discussed at Torquay?

Mr. Wilson: I understand that the ban of secrecy would not apply to those discussions.

Resale Price Maintenance (While Paper)

Mr. Paget: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now able to make a statement about the Government's policy on resale price maintenance.

Mr. H. Wilson: Government proposals on this subject will be presented in the form of a White Paper in the near future.

Price Controls

Mr. Paget: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Central Price Regulation Committee have completed their review of price controls which have been removed; and whether he can now make a statement on the position.

Mr. H. Wilson: The Central Price Regulation Committee have now reviewed most of the price controls over consumer goods (other than food) which have been removed since 1945. The Committee have reported that, in general, price increases since decontrol have not been excessive having regard to rises in raw material prices and other costs. In the case of certain classes of goods, however, which are the subject of a more detailed statement which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT they have reached the conclusion, after consideration of all the circumstances, that it will be necessary in the near future to re-introduce price control either on a statutory or on a voluntary basis. I am now taking steps to give effect to their recommendations.

Following is the statement:

The classes of goods in respect of which the Central Price Regulation Committee have recommended that price control either on a statutory or on a voluntary basis should be introduced are:

Domestic hollow-ware made of aluminium, copper, brass, plated and stainless steel.

Hardware and ironmongery (including cutlery, spoons and forks, brooms and brushes) and other articles not normally fitted by trade craftsmen.

Surgical dressings.

Narrow fabrics.

Toilet paper and other essential paper goods.

Discussions are now taking place or will shortly commence with the trades concerned as to the most suitable form of control in each case.

For radio valves and for articles of hardware and ironmongery normally fitted by trade craftsmen, the Committee consider that it would be sufficient for the present to secure an undertaking from the manufacturers concerned not to advance prices without prior consultation with the Committee, and the manufacturers are being approached accordingly. In the case of domestic cooking, refrigerating, heating, cleaning and washing appliances, the Committee have decided to open discussions with the industries concerned


in order to work out with them a suitable form of price control which could be put into operation without delay should the need arise. Statutory control over distributors' margins for knitting wools was reimposed at the beginning of this year; and manufacturers prices are now controlled under an agreement concluded in February between the Central Price Regulation Committee and the trade associations concerned. The Committee hope to complete their review shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — DRUNKENNESS (METROPOLITAN AREA)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions for dunkenness took place in the Metropolitan Police district during the calendar year 1950; and what was the comparable figure for 1946.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Sixteen thousand, seven hundred and sixty. The comparable figure for 1946 was 9,107.

Mr. J. Hudson: In view of the deplorable increase in the number of cases of drunkenness in the Metropolitan area and the decision of the House of Commons to increase the facilities for drinking during the Festival of Britain, has any thought been given to the necessity for greater safeguards in the supply of drink during the Festival of Britain?

Mr. Ede: The figures which I have given to the House have caused me very serious concern, and I am investigating the causes which can be assigned for them and what action, if any, can be taken to secure a reversal of the position.

Mr. Shepherd: As there was a greater consumption of liquor in 1946 than in 1950, is not the obvious remedy to increase the supply?

Mr. Somerville Hastings: Can my right hon. Friend say whether this unfortunate result is to be found only in London or whether there has been an increase in the figures in other large towns?

Mr. Ede: I regret to say that such figures as I have been able to examine as a result of the reports of Brewster Sessions, and so on, indicate that this trend is prevalent all over the country.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROSTITUTION, LONDON

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, as a result of the representations made

to him, he proposes to set up a Departmental committee to inquire into the problems of prostitution in London.

Mr. Ede: The deputation, led by the Bishop of London, which I recently received left with me a memorandum containing proposals made by the Paddington Moral Reform Council for dealing with this problem, and I promised that it would be carefully examined. This is now being done but until the examination is completed I cannot say whether further inquiry by a committee will be necessary.

Mrs. Castle: In view of the fact that a number of associations also interested in this problem do not necessarily accept all the proposals of the Paddington Moral Reform Council, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that if such a committee is set up he will publish its terms of reference and membership and give an opportunity for the public to submit evidence?

Mr. Ede: Certainly. If I decide to have an inquiry, the necessary publicity will be given so that the widest possible range of evidence may be obtained.

Mr. Dodds: Does my right hon. Friend not think that in view of the fact that the law is catching up with the Messina brothers, the position will be slightly better in the future?

Mr. Ede: I think that it is highly improper that my hon. Friend should allude to a case which is still before the courts.

Mr. Hastings: Will my right hon. Friend make the terms of reference of this committee wide enough to include the problem of homosexuality?

Mr. Ede: I have not yet decided that there shall be a committee, but I shall have regard to the terms of reference.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE

Volunteers (Loyalty)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy in regard to ensuring that all members of the Civil Defence organisation are completely trustworthy; and what steps he is taking to screen members and applicants as to national loyalty.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): I know of no means of ensuring that all members of any organisation are completely trustworthy, but I have no doubt that local authorities exercise a reasonable discretion in accepting volunteers for the Civil Defence Corps. Local authorities can, of course, dispense with the services of volunteers at any time. It would be the duty of the central Government to take action in respect of any person who engaged in activities likely to endanger national security.

Sir T. Moore: In view of the recent cases of disloyalty in other fields of Government service, would it not be advisable to take special precautions in this most essential organisation?

Mr. de Freitas: The Question refers to screening of members of the Civil Defence Corps. That is absolutely impossible, just as it is impossible to screen members of the Armed Forces.

Mr. H. Hynd: Would my hon. Friend not agree it is very desirable that members of certain suspect organisations, such as "The Link," should not be enrolled in Civil Defence?

Shelter Survey (Consultants)

Mr. Henry Brooke: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can yet state how soon London local authorities will be informed whether they have his authority to employ consultants to assist with the second stage of the shelter survey called for in Civil Defence Circular No. 48/1950; and how they are to obtain the other additional staff required to complete this survey by the stated date.

Mr. de Freitas: I hope to reach a conclusion before long. One difficulty is that the services of consultants who might be employed on the shelter survey may be needed more urgently for constructional work in the approved defence programme.

Mr. Brooke: As this circular asking local authorities to complete this important job by the end of June was issued in December and it is now April and local authorities still cannot get the guidance they require from the Home Office, is the Under-Secretary aware that it tends

to give people the impression that the Government are not now taking Civil Defence seriously?

Mr. de Freitas: Civil Defence is extremely important, but we do not want this work, important as it is, to prejudice any constructional work for the Fighting Services.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider issuing a circular to magistrates courts in respect of the penalties imposed for gross cruelty to animals.

Mr. Ede: No, Sir, it is for the magistrates who have all the evidence before them to decide what is the appropriate penalty in each particular case.

Sir T. Moore: In view of the substantial amount of public anxiety about this increasing number of cases of cruelty to animals, now estimated at 30,000 a year, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that some indication might be given to magistrates to exercise more control?

Mr. Ede: I have no reason to think that in this particular matter magistrates fail in the duty to discharge the oath they take on their appointment.

Oral Answers to Questions — CORONATION STONE (C.I.D. INQUIRIES)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent the expenses of the recent investigations in Scotland of Chief Inspector McGrath and Detective Sergeant John McDougall were financed by the Criminal Investigation Department and to what extent by his Department.

Mr. Ede: The expenses in question are being met from the Metropolitan Police Fund.

Mr. Rankin: Do I take it, then, that no public expenditure is involved so far as my right hon. Friend's Department is concerned? Can my right hon. Friend tell us what success has attended the efforts of these two officers, if any report is being issued and if any further action is proposed? Just for the sake of the


record, can he tell us what they were looking for in Scotland? Was it an English or a Scottish relic?

Mr. Ede: In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, the Metropolitan Police Fund is a public fund and these expenses are charged against it. These two officers have been in Scotland. They have made certain investigations, and a report as a result of their investigations has been submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions and is under consideration.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Was one of the missions of Chief Inspector McGrath to discover why one of the prayers of the Archbishop of Canterbury about the Stone of Destiny had not been answered?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the overwhelming majority of decent-minded Scottish people think that this is an outrage of the first magnitude and will willingly pay what is necessary to get the culprits brought to heel?

Mr. Ede: I hope that the hon. and gallant Member did not mean that these two officers were an outrage. They are concerned to see that the law of the country is observed.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept my assurance that I was referring to the dastardly outrage which took place at Westminster Abbey—a sacred place?

Oral Answers to Questions — SMALLPOX (PREVENTION)

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Minister of Health what precautions have been taken to prevent the influx of smallpox from Calcutta, where deaths from this disease now exceed 500 a week.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop): Special care is being taken by airport medical officers and travellers by air are given a warning notice, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend. Travellers by sea pass out of the incubation period for smallpox before they arrive. Rigorous measures, including, if necessary, the isolation of passengers, would be taken if a ship or aircraft were found to have a case of smallpox on board.

Mr. Hastings: Will the Parliamentary Secretary give careful consideration to the applications he is receiving from hospitals, insisting that all those officers who are in close contact with patients shall be vaccinated?

Mr. Blenkinsop: Yes, Sir, we are keeping that in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Chemists (Payment)

Mr. Redmayne: asked the Minister of Health the average delay in final settlement of chemists' accounts as at 30th June, 1949, 31st December, 1949, 30th June, 1950, 31st December, 1950, and at today's date.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Four, six, seven and a half, eight and a half and nine months, respectively.

Mr. Redmayne: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that these figures are correct, except for the latest figure which, according to my information, is 11 months? Is that not far too long?

Mr. Blenkinsop: We regard nine months as far too long, and we are doing what we can to reduce it.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with this increasing trend? Cannot he reverse it?

Mr. Blenkinsop: We are far from satisfied and are taking every step open to us, particularly by trying to open more premises in which the Joint Pricing Committee can work. We are quite sure that the position will improve.

Mr. Jennings: Does the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that three months' credit for a Government Department is quite long enough?

Mr. Blenkinsop: Perhaps the hon. Member does not realise that the total payments are as up to date as they were before the war. Very large sums are paid on account.

Mr. Redmayne: asked the Minister of Health what percentage of the full amount owing each month is paid to chemists under the National Health Service.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Chemists are paid monthly on account 90 per cent. of the estimated value of the prescriptions dispensed by them in the previous month.

Mr. Redmayne: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that even if 90 per cent. is correct he has the use of some £1 million of chemists' money a year without interest?

Mr. Blenkinsop: We make supplementary payments in addition to the 90 per cent. to give relief to difficulties which may arise where cases are brought to our notice. We do not think that the chemists are handicapped.

Chronic Sick, Northern Region (Beds)

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Health what steps he has taken to increase the beds for the chronic sick in the Northern Region.

Mr. Blenkinsop: A 30-bed unit has been opened, and the work on providing a further unit of 20 beds is almost finished.

Miss Ward: In view of the importance of providing beds for the chronic sick, can the Parliamentary Secretary say why there are now fewer beds for the chronic sick in the Northern Region than there were before the National Health Service Act came into operation?

Mr. Blenkinsop: I do not think that that is altogether true. We are quite satisfied that a great deal more can be done to make better use of existing bed accommodation, even without increasing the number of beds.

Mr. Vane: Is there any difference between a bed and a "bed unit"?

Miss Ward: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say why, when an order was obtained for a chronic sick woman to be taken into hospital quite recently in the Northern Region, there was not a bed available? Does he think that that is a good thing?

Mr. Blenkinsop: No, Sir, we do not think it is a good thing. But, to keep the question in balance, we must realise that there were also difficulties of this kind before the National Health Service Act, difficulties we are trying to overcome.

Berkshire Mental Hospitals' Committee (Chairman)

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Minister of Health what are the qualifications of Major General Lambert, who has just been appointed Chairman of the Berkshire Mental Hospitals' Committee.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Responsibility for this appointment rests with the Oxford Regional Hospital Board, but I understand that Major General Lambert has served as a member of the Committee and previously as a member of another mental hospital management committee in the area of a different board, by whom his services were strongly recommended.

Mr. Mikardo: Is my hon. Friend aware that this gentleman tendered his resignation after the first meeting of the committee three years ago, though it was not accepted; that he has since attended two other meetings and has taken no part in its proceedings, except once to correct someone who called him by the wrong military title? Does he consider that this is sufficient evidence of interest or knowledge of the hospitals in Berkshire to qualify this gentleman for the chairmanship?

Mr. Blenkinsop: While not accepting my hon. Friend's details of the qualifications of this gentleman, I would remind him that responsibility for these appointments rests with the regional hospital boards.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENSUS

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Health what is the number of Census forms to be printed for the 1951 Census; what is the cost; and if he will give similar figures for the last two censuses.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Approximately 11½ million schedules were printed for 1921, 13 million for 1931, and 18 million for 1951, for the enumeration of the population of England and Wales. The cost for 1921 and 1931 cannot be separated from the total cost for printing, and the cost for 1951 cannot be given without disproportionate labour which would not be justified at present.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that I hope that the people of once free Britain will take courage and follow the example of the Durham teachers, who struck a blow for freedom, and that they will put the Census forms into the fire?

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Health how much more information and how many more questions are required for the 1951 Census as compared with the two immediately previous censuses, respectively.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Twenty-four questions appear on the form for England in 1951, as against 15 in 1921 and 13 in 1931, but there are only four more subjects of inquiry than in 1931, or two more than in 1921, the inquiries on marriage and children and on household arrangements comprising four and five short questions respectively. At each Census there is for Wales (including Monmouthshire) an additional question on the Welsh language.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that I would like to repeat my supplementary question to the last Question, and that I hope that every newspaper in the country will print it?

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Health the purposes for which the detailed information required in Census Form, 1951, is necessary.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I would refer the hon. Member to the statements made in the debate on the draft Census Order, 1950, on 11th July last, and to the Booklet "The Census Explained" issued by H.M. Stationery Office.

Sir W. Smithers: May I again repeat my supplementary question to No. 42?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Farm, Yetminster (Boundary)

Mr. Digby: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has yet received a report from the Land Commission about the proposed farm boundary revision at Yetminster, Dorset; and, if so, whether the Commission recommend the promotion of a scheme.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): No, Sir.

Mr. Digby: Will the Minister bear in mind, when he receives this recommendation, that there is no voluntary basis whatever for this scheme? In fact, all those concerned seem to be opposed to it.

Mr. Williams: The report does not necessarily mean that a scheme will finally be submitted.

Lime Subsidy

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the weather conditions that have prevented work on the land in recent months, he will postpone the discontinuance of the subsidy towards the cost of spreading lime from 31st March, 1951, to 31st May, 1951.

Mr. T. Williams: No, but I would remind the hon. Member that the spreading contribution will be paid in respect of lime that was delivered to farms by the 31st March, 1951, and to that extent postponement of the actual spreading owing to the weather conditions will not have affected the amount of subsidy payable.

Mr. Turton: Is the Minister aware that in the method of spreading by contract the lime is not brought on to the farm until the spreading operations begin, and that it is estimated that 200,000 tons of lime under contract have not been spread owing to the exceptional weather conditions?

Mr. Williams: Unfortunately, we could not foresee what the weather conditions were likely to be when the Order was made on 23rd March, 1951.

Mr. M. Philips Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that farmers who placed orders for lime as far back as last autumn have been unable to do anything with it owing to the state of the ground?

Mr. Williams: That is very unfortunate, and I am as sorry about it as anybody else.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: That is just the point. Cannot the Minister ease the problem so that the farmers will get the lime on to the farms as soon as weather permits?

Mr. Williams: That was beyond my power as soon as the Order was made by the House on 25th March.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Could not the right hon. Gentleman make a new Order?

Mr. Turton: Is the Minister aware that if he does not amend the Order it will cause uncertainty and confusion to a great many contracts, and that on 23rd March when he made the Order, the effects of the weather were quite apparent to everyone in the country?

Kentish Produce (Rail Transport)

Mr. John Arbuthnot: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Kentish agricultural produce was allowed to rot in trucks at Blackfriars Station on Good Friday while Gravel Lane Station, which handles foreign produce, was open and delivering; and whether he will make representations to the British Transport Commission to ensure that home-produced fruit and vegetables should, in future, receive treatment as expeditious as that given to foreign produce.

Mr. T. Williams: I have asked the British Transport Commission to investigate the matter referred to by the hon. Member and will advise him of the outcome as soon as possible.

Poultry (Import Restrictions)

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the import of dead poultry from countries when fowl pest disease is endemic.

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Agriculture if, in view of the continuance of outbreaks of fowl pest in this country, he will now impose a complete ban on all imports both of live and dead poultry from abroad until the disease in this country is stamped out.

Mr. T. Williams: After very careful consideration the Government have decided that, in view of the serious risks involved for our own poultry industry, imports of poultry carcases from countries where fowl pest is endemic must be prohibited for the time being and that, accordingly, the special exception for imports from certain countries will be withdrawn from 1st May next. An amending order under the Diseases of Animals

Act will be made before then. At the same time, we recognise that this will deprive us of some of our supplies of poultry, which is something we can ill afford. We are, accordingly, asking the United Kingdom poultry industry to do its best, with the resources available, to rear more birds for the table, particularly turkeys for next Christmas. We hope that the industry in the Irish Republic will also send us larger supplies. It has been decided to review the matter later in the year in the light of the supply and disease considerations. The present decision is, therefore, an interim one, but since our need for more table poultry is likely to remain, I hope that the home industry will in any case expand its output.

Mr. Dye: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the home industry will greatly welcome his statement? Will he give an assurance that he will not lift the ban on imported poultry from those countries where the disease is endemic until they have taken adequate steps to ensure that never again will poultry sent to this country be a danger to our own industry? Otherwise, how can the home producer increase his production for Christmas or any other time?

Mr. Williams: I have already indicated that it is our intention, in a few months' time, to review the whole matter not only in the light of our own requirements but also with regard to the disease.

Sir T. Dugdale: Does the Minister recollect that my right hon. Friend gave him advice on the subject for the last two and a half years, and would it not be much better if he had taken this step about that time? Will he also bear in mind that we on this side of the House will do all in our power to encourage farmers to increase the country's poultry stocks?

Mr. Williams: I hope that the hon. Member and his colleagues will carry out the suggestion in the last part of his supplementary. With regard to the former part, it is true that hon. Members were giving me advice that I did not need.

Mr. H. Hynd: Can the Minister say what precautions are being taken lest advantage be taken by the home producer to put up prices?

Mr. Williams: The Minister of Food will keep that constantly in mind.

Mr. Grimond: Does the Minister's statement mean that he is now satisfied that the commonest cause of the disease is imported poultry? Secondly, will he consult his colleagues to see if they will make available larger supplies of feeding-stuffs?

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member is well aware that it is not a question of consulting my colleagues but of the availability of feedingstuffs.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Can the Minister explain how our poultry stocks can expand unless farmers get an extra allocation of feedingstuffs? I myself should like to know the answer.

Mr. Williams: By farms becoming more self-sufficient in the production of their own feedingstuffs.

Produce Associations

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many counties have now signified their intention to merge with the National Allotments and Gardens Society.

Mr. T. Williams: Fifteen county garden produce committees have informed me that they are supporting the merger of village produce associations and the reconstituted National Allotments and Gardens Society.

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture if, in view of the present emergency and the necessity to produce the maximum amount of food from our own soil, he will continue the grant to the village produce associations.

Mr. T. Williams: Village produce associations are self-supporting and have never been grant aided.

Mr. Crouch: In view of the importance of full food production will not the Minister continue the grant?

Mr. Williams: The associations have been self-supporting so far, and I do not see the need to make a change at this moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — HORSES (TRANSIT FROM IRELAND)

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has yet made any order under the Diseases of Animals Act to ensure the better protection of horses in transit between Eire and the United Kingdom.

Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir. For the reasons explained in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Gillingham (Squadron Leader Burden) and the hon. and gallant Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott), on 8th March, I am afraid it will not be possible to make this order for a little time yet.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Could The Minister say when the order might be available? Would it be later in the summer?

Mr. Williams: A provisional order has been sent to the various bodies, including the Eire Government, the Northern Ireland Government and the Ministry of Transport. We are awaiting their observations.

Mr. Peter Freeman: In the meantime, will my right hon. Friend refuse to allow animals to be moved from Eire in bad weather which was mentioned as having happened on a previous occasion when this matter was originally raised?

Mr. Williams: I have no power to deal with what leaves Eire.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE UNIFORMS (TAX)

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent under his regulations police authorities have to pay purchase tax on police uniforms; and whether this tax can be waived on such uniforms in view of the increasing rate burden.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): Police uniforms, in common with all other uniforms, of which there are very many, are chargeable with Purchase Tax unless they come within the utility scheme, and I am afraid it would be impossible to treat them exceptionally.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill: Has the Leader of the House any statement to make this week on the subject of next week's business?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 9TH APRIL—Motion to refer the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill to the Scottish Standing Committee, for Second Reading.

Second Reading of the Mineral Workings Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolutions.

Third Reading of the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Bill.

Motion to approve the draft Petrol-driven Agricultural Machines (Grants) Revocation Scheme.

TUESDAY, 10TH APRIL—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget.

WEDNESDAY AND THURSDAY, 11TH AND 12TH APRIL—General debate on the Budget Resolutions and the Economic Survey, which will be continued and brought to a conclusion on Monday, 16th April.

FRIDAY, 13TH APRIL—Consideration of Private Members' Motions.

During the week we shall ask the House to approve the draft House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (Scotland) Orders.

Mr. Churchill: We understand that it is not likely that the Government will be able to issue in the near future the promised White Paper with regard to appointments to the High Command under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Is that so? What are the prospects? May I ask the Leader of the House to remember that we have postponed a debate on the subject several times? If no White Paper is to be made available shortly, we shall have to ask for an opportunity to discuss the matter in the week after next. Perhaps that matter might be discussed through the usual channels—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—as I understand, from the usual channels, that they feel themselves completely un-clogged.

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Opposition for the way in which this matter has been handled. There have been some conversations during the last two or three days. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence is doing all that he can to expedite decisions being reached in this matter, and he will endeavour to have a White Paper available as soon as possible. I agree that the delay has been longer than I think either of us expected. We will discuss the possibility of having a debate during the week indicated by the right hon. Gentleman if we are unable to make any better pronouncement with regard to publication than I am in a position to make at the moment.

Mr. Maclay: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will consult the Minister of Defence to make certain that the White Paper covers the whole structure, and not only the Defence Committee, of the organisation?

Mr. Ede: I have drawn the attention of my right hon. Friend to this phase of the subject.

Major Tufton Beamish: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to find some Government time after the Budget to discuss the Motion which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) regretting the failure of the Government to establish a department for the conduct and prosecution of political warfare?

Mr. Ede: I do not see any chance of that being discussed. I should have thought that it was a matter which might be raised during some debate on Supply.

STERLING AREA (GOLD AND DOLLAR RESERVES)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gaitskell): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the gold and dollar position of the sterling area.
During the first quarter of 1951, the sterling area's net gold and dollar surplus amounted to $360 million compared with a surplus of $398 million in the fourth quarter of 1950, and $187 million in the


third quarter of 1950. Receipts under the European Recovery Programme in respect of allotments made before the end of 1950 amounted to $98 million compared with $145 million in the fourth quarter of 1950 and $147 million in the third quarter. The central gold and dollar reserves of the sterling area rose, therefore, during the first quarter of 1951 by $458 million and amounted to $3,758 million on 31st March, compared with $3,300 million on 31st December and $2,756 million on 30th September.
As a result of the continued increase in the reserves, an issue of sterling to the Exchange Equalisation Account will shortly be necessary, and a further issue of £300 million will accordingly be made to the account during the current month.
As far as can be seen at present, the substantial gold and dollar surplus in the first quarter of 1951 is mainly due to high dollar earnings by countries in the rest of the sterling area which have no doubt also been reflected in an increase in our sterling liabilities to those countries. The United Kingdom itself appears to have remained in deficit with the dollar area, while at the same time our total balance of overseas payments has certainly been much less favourable in the last few months, because of the sharp increase in import prices.

Mr. Lyttelton: I think it would be inappropriate to comment or ask questions now upon this statement, which carries us very wide. I think the right hon. Gentleman will understand if we refrain from commenting until the Budget debate.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does the statement mean that there is little or no substance in the repeated allegation that the increase in our gold and dollar reserves is largely due to the running down of our stocks?

Mr. Gaitskell: There is no substance in that allegation.

Mr. Lyttelton: Surely the right hon. Gentleman would agree that much of the favourable balance-of-payments position that we have enjoyed is due to the restriction of imports which now, on looking back, seems to have been an unfortunate policy. I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gaitskell: During the last year it is certainly not true to say that shortage of dollars has restricted our imports.

Mr. Baker White: Will the Chancellor agree that in regard to the attainment of this result full praise should be given to some 2,000 men who are producing and managing rubber and tin estates in Malaya, in constant danger of their lives?

Mr. Gaitskell: Certainly, we are all indebted to the splendid output of rubber and tin from Malaya.

Sir Richard Acland: Can my right hon. Friend be more specific, and at some time publish a statement showing what are the dollar earnings of those other parts of the sterling area, particularly of the Colonial Dependencies?

Mr. Gaitskell: My hon. Friend has asked that question a number of times, and I have given him my answer. We do publish the total earnings of the rest of the sterling area, and these figures will be available in due course.

Mr. Shepherd: The right hon. Gentleman says that the run-down of stocks has no part in the increase in our gold and dollar reserves. Why then is the rundown referred to in the Economic Survey for 1951?

Mr. Gaitskell: If the hon. Member reads the Economic Survey, he will see that the run-down is ascribed to inability to obtain supplies from non-dollar sources.

Mr. Osborne: The Chancellor has said that the United Kingdom share of this increase is not substantial, and he also admits that we have run down our stocks, particularly of raw materials and foodstuffs; therefore would he not agree that it would be wrong to give the country too optimistic a picture of our own position as regards this statement?

Mr. Gaitskell: If the hon. Member reads my statement, especially the last paragraph, I think he will see that I was careful not to give too optimistic an impression.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House.)—[Mr. Ede.]

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(ARMY ACT AND AIR FORCE ACT TO BE IN FORCE FOR SPECIFIED TIMES.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

3.41 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I should like to ask for certain assurances on the effects of this Clause, because it continues the Army Act under which certain disciplinary penalties are liable to be inflicted upon Service personnel and I am interested to know what attitude the Service Ministers take up towards them. I want to know whether the Service Ministers will consider certain amendments of the original Army Act in so far as it is likely to apply to our Service personnel in Malaya and in Korea. I am referring to the Section of the original Army Act which, for certain offences, makes serving soldiers liable to the death penalty.

The Chairman: I think the hon. Member is speaking on the wrong Clause. The proper place to raise the question of Malaya, if it is raised at all, is on Clause 3 and not on Clause 2.

Mr. Hughes: But that does not cover my whole point. I submit that Clause 2 perpetuates for another year the original Army Act under which certain penalties are liable to be imposed upon soldiers and airmen, not only in Malaya, but in every theatre of war. My argument is that in view of the fact that some of the soldiers in Korea and in Malaya at the present time are young Service men with little experience and training, and because there have been so many protests in the House—

The Chairman: Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is out of order. Clause 2, to which he is speaking, applies the whole of the Army Act and the Air Force Act for a specified period. It is not competent to raise the question which the hon. Gentleman is raising on this Clause,

which merely applies the whole of those Acts for a specified period. He cannot take out a little bit here and there.

Mr. Hughes: I am sorry if I have not made my point with due clarity. My argument is that, if this Clause perpetuates those Acts for a certain specified period, then within that period we should have an assurance that the Section which is liable to impose the death penalty on young soldiers in Korea and Malaya should not be enacted.

The Chairman: I gather that the hon. Gentleman wants either to amend the Act or to obtain some assurance about it; but he has no Amendment down, and it is not therefore permissible to amend the Clause or to raise isolated points arising out of the Army Act or Air Force Act in a Clause of this Bill which applies or extends the whole of those Acts.

Mr. Hughes: I was speaking on the Question that the Clause stand part, and asking for an assurance from the Service Ministers that the death penalty will not be inflicted upon National Service men serving in any of the theatres of operation. That was all.

Mr. Blackburn: May I ask for your guidance, Major Milner, on what we are competent to discuss under Clause 2? When we had the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Bill before us recently, it was the Ruling of the Chair that nothing could be said on the subject of courts-martial themselves. In reply to a question that I asked, the Minister stated that for the purpose of the unanimity rule no legislation is necessary. Is it, therefore, in order to say a few words simply upon the way in which the Army Act is administered now in relation to Clause 1?

The Chairman: We cannot discuss how the Army Act is administered. This Clause applies the Army Act. How it is administered is a matter for discussion on a Supply Day.

Mr. Blackburn: I am not in any way trying to get something in order on this question which could be more properly raised on a Supply Day, but it appears to me that under this Clause we are undeniably for the next year making all our soldiers amenable to this jurisdiction. It appears to me, if I may make this sub


mission,that simply to deal with this narrow issue of the unanimity rule under courts-martial would have been relevant inasmuch as the effect of our passing this Clause—

The Chairman: Order. On consideration, I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a matter of administration.

Mr. Hughes: Might I ask for your guidance on this point, Major Milner? If this question is carried to a Division and the Clause is not added to the Bill, would it not mean that the young soldiers in Korea and Malaya would not be liable to these very severe penalties?

The Chairman: If the Clause were defeated it would mean that there would be no discipline in the Army or Air Force. Probably there would be no Army or Air Force at all.

Mr. Blackburn: Further to my point, Major Milner, if I caught your last answer to my previous question aright, you said that was a matter involving legislation?

The Chairman: No, of administration.

Mr. Manuel: As I understand your Ruling, Major Milner, this deals only with the specified time laid down in the Act. Some of us think that period much too long and that it would perpetuate certain things which should not be continued. It is difficult to talk about the period without relating it to why we think the period is wrong. Would I be in order in raising a point which I queried with a Minister recently with regard to young soldiers under 19 going to Malaya whereas they could not go to Korea unless they were 19? We cannot get that rectified unless we shorten the period.

The Chairman: Again, that is I think a matter of administration.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(APPLICATION OF ARMY ACT AND AIR FORCE ACT TO THE FEDERATION OF MALAYA.)

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. EMRYS HUGHES), in page 3, line 10, after "section," to insert:
other than section four of this Act.

The Chairman: I am sorry, but I have not been able to select the Amendment.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I had gathered that, Major Milner.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): The Committee may wish me to say a few words about the effect of the Clause. It is to secure that reference in the Army Act to a colony shall be construed as including reference to the Federation of Malaya. The significance of the term "colony" for the purposes of the Army Act has been extended by other legislation but not so extended as to include the Federation of Malaya, which is a federation composed partly of protected States and partly of British settlements.
The effect of the extension is that forces raised in Malaya under local legislation can be brought under the Army Act just as can forces raised in the Colony under colonial legislation. I think the Committee will agree that it is entirely proper and reasonable to make that extension. Subsections (3) and (4) of the proposed new Section 187AB of the Army Act simply make consequential extensions of the phrases "His Majesty's Force" and "Service in His Majesty's Forces," and subsection (2) of the Clause makes the corresponding alteration in the Air Force Act.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what has been happening up to now? How have they managed in the meantime? Why has this just been discovered?

Mr. Stewart: This does not apply to any locally enlisted forces but to forces raised under local legislation, and so far these have not existed. The native forces which have existed in Malaya so far have been locally enlisted and not raised under local legislation.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: We cannot accept the Clause without further assurances and further explanation. I gather that the Clause is to deal not with Service personnel who go from this country to Malaya but to forces raised in Malaya. I do not want personnel recruited in Malaya to be treated in the same way as soldiers sent from this country to Malaya.


We have heard so many cases in this House about young soldiers from this country with insufficient training being sent into action that we should certainly not agree to the raising of forces in Malaya in which soldiers under 19 years of age would be liable to be sent into difficult jungle warfare with insufficient training. I do not want young soldiers unfortunate enough to have been born in Malaya to be treated in the same way as soldiers sent from Scotland.

Mr. Stewart: I am not sure how far this is relevant to the purpose of the Clause, but what my hon. Friend has said obliges me to say that there is no evidence whatever for the suggestion which he has made that young men have been sent into action in Malaya with insufficient training. The facts do not bear that out. My hon. Friend is not justified in suggesting it.

Air Commodore Harvey: As this subject has been raised—I did not think it was in order, but now I presume that it is—I should like to point out that I entirely disagree with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. He will recall that only three or four weeks ago five men of the Worcestershire Regiment were killed. Two of them were from my constituency, and one was just 19 and the other was still 18. Although the Secretary of State said the other day that these young men did not go into action until they had had a month's local training in Malaya, two of those young soldiers went into the jungle on operations with only two weeks' training. On this occasion I am in entire agreement with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), and I believe that the House is deeply concerned about the age of these young men and the amount of training given to them. I have been balloting for about seven weeks in the hope of raising this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Bellenger: On a point of order, Major Milner. Is this discussion in order? It is about British troops. Does not the Clause apply only to native enlisted men?

Air Commodore Harvey: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point. I was about to say that the House is just as much concerned whether the men fighting on our behalf are young soldiers sent from this country, Malays or British Chinese.

While the local boys may have a better chance as they are more acclimatised to local conditions, we should have assurances on this point. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not merely skate over the problem and dismiss the subject, because the Committee and the whole of the country are gravely concerned about it. The hon. Gentleman will not get away with it merely by making a few remarks and hoping that that will be the end of it.

The Chairman: Again, I have to say that this is a question of administration.

Air Commodore Harvey: It may be administration, Major Milner, but it affects the local call up of young recruits in Malaya itself, and I should have thought—

The Chairman: Those are really questions for Supply. All the Bill and the Clause do is to apply certain provisions of the Army Acts to the Federation of Malaya. Whether the troops are the troops raised there or our troops in Malaya, I am not quite sure. Nevertheless, the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question is certainly one of administration.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: I should not have intervened on this Clause if this question had not arisen. You have allowed a certain amount of debate and a statement from the Undersecretary, Major Milner, and, although I agree with you that it would be unwise on this occasion to continue the debate at any length, I hope you will allow me just to repeat on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends the line that we have-always taken about both troops raised at home and the troops that are now to be raised in Malaya. We believe that there should be a minimum of a month's local service before they are allowed to go into action. If we could get that assurance it would be helpful to all hon. Members who are interested in this matter.

Mr. Driberg: May I ask my hon. Friend a question before we pass this? Will the Clause apply to the Gurkhas now serving in Malaya?

Mr. Stewart: No, it is not as wide as that. It will not apply to those forces in Malaya, nor does it apply to all Malayan forces It applies only to forces raised under Malayan legislation. It is


rather narrower than some hon. Members have supposed.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), will not wish me to go very far into this topic. I intervened only because it seemed to me right that the statement made by my hon. Friend should not be allowed to pass unchallenged. All the evidence we have shows that these young men have given extremely good account of themselves—that is pertinent—and that their training is not at fault. It is true that there was the tragic episode mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey). Inevitably there are casualties in these operations which, on any showing, we must regard as very tragic indeed, but there is no evidence to suggest that the casualties which have occurred, tragic as they are, have happened because the men were insufficiently trained and were unable to give a proper account of themselves.
My right hon. Friend and I are always anxious to see if any further steps are needed and can be taken to put it beyond any shadow of doubt that these men are properly trained, but it is our right and proper duty to these men to indicate that there is really no ground at all for supposing that we are sending men into battle improperly trained and that the casualties, which must occur as part of the tragic course of war, are not due to their not being properly trained for the emergencies which they have to meet.

Air Commodore Harvey: The Undersecretary has contradicted himself. When he replied to one of his hon. Friends he said that a minimum of a month's training was given. Now he has referred to the tragic case of the five men of the Worcestershire Regiment. Are we to understand that all soldiers should have a minimum of a month's training before going into action? In the case I cited the training happened to be of only two weeks' duration. The Committee would like a categorical assurance on this point.

The Chairman: Having regard to what the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) said, to which the Minister has replied, I have really allowed too much latitude; and I do not think that I can now permit a debate dealing

with points purely of administration to continue on the Clause.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: I am still not quite clear why the Clause is necessary, because the existing definition Section in the Army Act says:
The expression "colony" means any part of His Majesty's dominions exclusive of the United Kingdom, and of any Dominion, and includes any British protectorate.
Why is that definition Section, which really is very wide and would seem to include Malaya, now taken not to include the Federation of Malaya? After all, all that the Clause appears to do is to say in subsection (2):
References in this Act to a colony shall be construed as including references to the Federation of Malaya.
From the definition I have quoted, I should have thought that the Army Act already included the Federation of Malaya under the definition of "colony" in the definition Section. Will the hon. Gentleman please explain this?

Mr. Stewart: It is possible that the hon. Member may be right. What we have to face is that in the Federation of Malaya we have something that is sui generis, and we cannot be certain that the definitions already in the Army Act do in fact cover it. What we have done now is to put the matter beyond doubt and to make it possible for forces to be raised under Malayan legislation and for the Army Act to be applied to them.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(AMENDMENT OF S. 85 OF ARMY ACT.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. H. Macmillan: The Clause makes an important and, so far as I know, new provision. As I understand it, it permits a soldier who has re-engaged in order to complete 22 years' service to apply to continue beyond those 22 years at any time after he has served for 15 years. The Clause is one which my hon. and right hon. Friends have for some years


suggested might be included in our system of recruiting, and we express our appreciation of the fact that the Government have now decided to take this additional step and hope that it will be beneficial in getting these longer engagements for the particular type of men who may be so helpful both to the Army and to the Air Force.
There are one or two points which I should like the hon. Gentleman to explain when he replies. I do not know the meaning of the words "original term" towards the beginning of the new Section 85 (2), which appear in page 4, line 44, of the Bill. The advice we have received is that, contrary to what one would expect—but that is so often so with the law—the words mean, not "original term," but "current term." If that is the legal meaning, the effect of the subsection is what we all want: it is to allow men to apply to extend their service for periods of up to five years if they have had a break in their service. That is a very important point.
What I am asking is whether the word "original,"—which one would have thought should have been "current"—if applied, say, to a man who had completed his original engagement of 12 years, who had then left the Service without re-engagement and who then re-enlisted, would enable such a man then to apply to continue beyond the 22 years during the last 12 months of his new—that is, his current—service, and not, as would appear on the surface, preclude him because that period was not the last 12 months of his original service, he having already served that and passed out of the Forces. This is a point merely of meaning, but I hope it will be made clear beyond doubt, because otherwise it would take away from what I understand to be one of the main purposes of the Clause.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will refer also to another point on which there is considerable divergence of opinion. Under subsection (6, a) of the new Section 85, periods spent on National Service do not count towards the total number of years—15 under the new arrangement—which a man has to serve before he can apply for extended service. In other words, if a man's first two years' service were National Service, they would not

count and he would have to serve another 15 years in the fixing of the time before which he could apply for extended service beyond the longer period.
There are arguments both ways. There, are already, of course, many very satisfactory and helpful inducements to National Service men to join for limited periods of short service or for longer periods, and it could well be argued that to make matters still more favourable would be discouraging to enlistment. At the same time, there is a feeling among some of us, and, I think, in many parts of the Committee, that it would be fairer to allow these two years to count. I do not press the point, but merely raise it.
Subject to these two questions of detail—first, the meaning of the word "original" and being sure that it covers what we want, and secondly, the point regarding the two years of National Service—we believe that this is a wise new provision in the Bill. It is one which we have suggested for several years and we are glad that the Government have seen their way to include it in this year's proposals.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I should like to address a query to the Under-Secretary of State regarding the question of extension of service. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) has said, it is a matter for which we on this side have been pressing very hard because of the whole question of security of employment, both while a man is in the Army and after he has left it. It is a question not only of pay, but of making an Army career a career for life. As each extension is granted, does the pension of the individual on retirement increase with the extension? If not, I can foresee a recurrence of what has sometimes happened in the past.
A man who has devoted a great deal of his life to the service of the Army may come to the end of his very long extended service and find himself far too old for any sort of employment. One knows how difficult it is nowadays to get employment in civilian life even for a man who is only 40 years of age. Therefore, I want to know whether men who extend their service to this extent will be granted adequate pensions at the end of their time so as to encourage them to stay on and


also to encourage recruitment for the Forces generally.
I support also the remarks of my right hon. Friend regarding the two years' service of National Service men. We want to encourage as many National Service men as possible to stay on as Regular soldiers after their National Service. The question of two years in 25 years' service is not a very great deterrent, I admit, but it is a slight deterrent nevertheless. The matter ought to be looked at again, and I should very much like to hear what the Under-Secretary has to say about it.

Mr. Bellenger: I think the whole House will agree with the right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) that the Clause now inserted in the Bill, in redemption of the promise made by the Secretary of State during discussion on the Army Estimates, will benefit considerably the Regular Army and Air Force. Several questions emerge as a result of the new provision, but I do not want to take up the time of the Committee in putting them seriatim to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.
I have considerable sympathy with the point about the two years' National Service. It is a sort of apprenticeship, whether it be for the other ranks or for the commissioned ranks, and I think it should be included for all purposes, not only for the purposes specified in the Clause but for pensions, and so forth.
I ask my hon. Friend whether it is possible to publish in some form of which the House can take cognisance, what is to follow as a result of passing this Clause today. I have no doubt that various instructions will appear in Army Council Instructions, which are not ordinarily seen by hon. Members. I am not sure whether they are placed in the Library; they were not during certain periods of the war. Is it possible to give the House information on detailed points, some of which have been put and others which we have refrained from putting, as we do not want to take up the time of the Committee?

Mr. Low: I wish to comment on the question of counting the two years of National Service. I realise that there are arguments both ways, but it has always seemed to me that it is most in the interests of the Service to encourage National Service men to volunteer as Regulars as early as possible during their

service under the National Service Acts. It would seem to run counter to that, to enable a man who has served two years' National Service, without making up his mind whether to volunteer or not, to have the same advantages as a man who had made up his mind to take the plunge considerably earlier in his National Service. That would seem, from the point of view of the advantage to the Service, to be a good reason for supporting the subsection as it stands. On the other hand, I appreciate that we should be unwise to put any discouragement or deterrent in the way of the man who has completed his two years' National Service and is still thinking of volunteering.
I should like the Under-Secretary to tell us about how these various arguments, when properly weighed up, lead to one or other of these right conclusions. I agree with other hon. Members that this is only one side of the problem. There is the question whether a man's National Service, when he engages immediately after the two years, or during that period, should be counted towards pension. I am not sure what is the present rule. Nor am I sure of the present rule about seniority and whether service as a National Service man helps in seniority and whether length of service matters for that purpose.
In any case, the Committee will probably agree that it would be wrong to allow a man who had completed his National Service, left the Army, and later come back and volunteered as a Regular, to count the two years, either for the purposes of this Clause, the purposes of pension, or anything else. If the Committee decided that it would like this Clause to be amended so as to allow a man to volunteer during his National Service or immediately on the conclusion of two years' National Service, we should put in words to safeguard that. I imagine that the Committee would all agree to that.
4.15 p.m.
We are probably all guided by one aim in this matter. It is that we should do nothing to discourage men from joining the Regular Army. That must be our aim, and because I see the difficulties and the equally balanced arguments on these points, I hope the Under-Secretary will make a very full statement of his views and the views of the War Office on the matter.

Mr. George Wigg: A year ago the Opposition put down an Amendment to the Army Act and I pleaded with them to withdraw it on the understanding that the Government would look at their proposal. There is no doubt whatever that on all sides of the Committee we want to put forward proposals which will encourage the long-service Regular soldier to stay in the Army on conditions attractive to him. I am sure that what the Government have put into the Bill is much better than that which was on the Order Paper last year, but I am still not quite convinced that this is the answer to the problem. It is a matter which the Committee will have to watch very closely.
A year ago I said that probably I was the only hon. Member who had been called upon to make up his mind on this particular point. The Committee should look very carefully at the case of the warrant officer with some 15 years' service. What is going to happen to him when he leaves the Army, or if he decides to reengage for a further five years starting with his 22nd year? He does not know where he will be called upon to serve, nor what is to happen to his children. One of his children may be quite brilliant and win a scholarship to a secondary school. He does not know what his housing prospects will be—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: No.

Mr. Wigg: He may have to leave married quarters and go to look for a house. All these things have to be borne in mind. Before the war that same warrant officer could wait until the end of his service. We should bear in mind that everyone else was waiting also and such a man would not feel that unless he reengaged in his 15th year he would lose a chance of being W.O. Class 1. The same man may be extremely hesitant now, and he may feel that because of all the uncertainties it would be better to turn his back on the Army and look for a job in civilian life.
While I welcome what is in the Bill, I am not by any means convinced by it. It is not the final step. I am sure that all Members of the Committee want to keep the long-service man in the Army. In order to do that, a lot more has to be done in the way of guaranteed jobs and training for jobs and to meet the point made

by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) about the provision of houses. This is something which ought to be done by local authorities. They ought to give consideration to long service N.C.O.s so that at the end of their service they may have a roof over their heads and not have to do as I did, commute their pension in order to get a house. My case was by no means exceptional. This happens to most of us when we leave the Army. We have to consider what is to happen to our families and the longer one waits, the worse the problem becomes.
I hope my hon. Friend will look at the problem and see whether the new proposal is producing the answer we want and not in fact dissuading the long-service soldier from re-engaging and, subsequently, from continuing in the Army after he has completed 22 years' service.

Major Legge-Bourke: Perhaps the simplest thing for the Undersecretary to do would be to begin by answering one specific question which I will put to him. Would he say whether his Department consider it more important to get a large number of National Service men to continue their service as Regulars, or is he more anxious that they should give early notice of what they propose to do? That point arises out of what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low). There are obviously two sides to the argument and there seems to be running through the debate a tendency to encourage men to make a decision whether or not they are going on as Regulars as soon as possible after their full-time National Service has begun.
I would put to the Committee that it is probably in the latter half of his two years' National Service that a man will have the best time. He goes through a somewhat intensive training in the first year and it is not until he has served a year that he will get into a regiment which is a Regular fighting unit. It is probably in that period that he is most likely to decide to go on as a Regular. I suggest that we should not unduly stress the importance of getting this early decision from the National Service men. What we should concentrate upon is getting as many men as possible to carry on as Regular soldiers. That being so, we should give every encouragement to


them to do that, provided we do not discourage the men who volunteer right from the word "go."
I have yet to be convinced that there are any Regular soldiers serving today who would resent this particular facility being granted to the National Service men. It is a small facility, that a National Service man who becomes a Regular should have the right to count in his 15 years the two years he served as a National Service man. I do not believe it would be any discouragement whatever to Regular recruiting. I do not believe there is that friction between National Service men and Regular soldiers, especially National Service men who eventually do become Regulars. I quite understand, as the matter stands at the moment, that if a National Service man does become a Regular during the course of his full-time National Service, he is allowed to count the unexpired portion of his full-time service. That will not be a very long period, probably a year at the most, and it may make just that difference in the case of a few men in persuading them to become Regulars.
All of us who have followed these debates each year, and the Service debates, are entirely unanimous upon one point—even the pacifists. That is that if we must have an Army let us have a volunteer Regular Army rather than a conscript Army if it can possibly be arranged. Therefore anything we can do to get a greater number of Regular soldiers is worth encouraging, if it means that by so doing we greatly reduce the need for National Service men. When we first accepted the idea of National Service in the last Parliament a good many of us who have been Regular soldiers said we would far sooner see a volunteer Army continued. We had to accept the fact that what happened was necessary for the time being, but we hoped that the period of necessity would be as short as possible.
Therefore I ask the hon. Gentleman to tell us exactly what are the factors, which decided the Government to come down for this particular drafting. I am not sure that I see the argument at the moment. I am inclined to think that too much attention has been given to encouraging men to make a decision early during their full-time National Service. I hope that the hon.

Gentleman will answer the question which I put to him at the beginning of my speech: which the Government considers more important, to get the men, whether at the beginning or the end of the two years, or to get them to make a decision earlier? I believe the majority of the Committee would say that we should get the greatest number, no matter when they make their decision.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I support the argument in favour of including this whole-time National Service with the Regular Service on which the National Service man may subsequently embark. Previous speakers have drawn attention to the balance of argument which is involved in the consideration of this matter. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) represented the views of the Committee when he said that, by and large, we all want to reduce, as quickly as possible and as soon as possible, the number of National Service men upon whom we have to rely for the provision of the forces required by this country.
While I agree that it may be desirable that a National Service man should make up his mind as quickly as possible to adopt a Regular engagement, nevertheless it ought to be possible to devise some formula which would encourage the National Service man by enabling him to count at least some portion of his National Service towards his full-time engagement. Perhaps the War Office could decide, for example, that part of the period of National Service on which a man had been engaged prior to enlistment for a Regular engagement could be counted towards his Regular service period. I am sure that some such concession could and should be made which would enable part, if not the whole, of his National Service to be counted. I was not able to follow the whole of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), though I sympathise with the general tenor of his case.
This Clause does enable a man at the end of his 22 years' service to serve for a further period of five years. Under this Clause it is possible for a man towards the end of his 22 years' service, to enlist for a further period of 12 months, and to keep on joining for further period$ of 12 months until the maximum period


of five years has been exhausted. It is possible that to be able to enlist for a further period of 12 months would help the Regular Service man very considerably. He could, when deciding whether or not to enlist for a further period of 12 months, have regard to the possibility of getting a job in civilian life, the stage reached in the education of his children, and the local housing situation in the area in which he wanted to reside. He can have all these facts in mind and take advantage of whatever situation might exist in deciding whether or not to enlist for a further period of 12 months during the last five years, a decision which this Clause places at his disposal.
4.30 p.m.
That said, this Clause is a useful advance. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that we must regard it as an experimental Clause. It goes some way towards meeting a point about which some of us have felt for some time, namely, the future of the Regular soldier on the expiration of his Regular engagement. I have long argued that in the new economic set-up which prevails in this country, there is no reason why it should not be possible for the Government to guarantee a job to every Service man who has served his whole-time service. The extent to which the Government now control jobs, the extent to which the Government can guarantee a Service man a job at the end of his Regular period of Service is very much greater now than it has ever been. It is, therefore, an undertaking upon which the Government could safely embark.
I know that would be a considerable inducement to Regular Service men not only to serve 15 or 22 years but to go on serving for the maximum period of 27 years which will now be available to them under this Clause when the Bill is on the Statute Book. I warmly support the Clause, with the reservations to which I have referred.

Mr. Wigg: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. The Regular soldier under its old regulations would be approximately 39 years' old before he had to make up his mind whether to carry on beyond 22 years. Under the new regulations it would obviously mean that the man would be much younger when he undertook to continue his service. That

being so, if he cannot see very clearly into the future as to what will happen to him, it might be, for that reason, while other people are re-engaging, he, not being quite certain what to do, may say "I am uncertain. I will get a job in civilian life." I do not say that it would work out in that way. My argument was that such doubts have to be borne in mind, and that, therefore, we ought not to be too satisfied with this provision but that next year we ought to have another look at it and see how it has worked.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: That is why I said that we ought to regard this Clause as an experiment the operation of which we shall all watch with great interest. I hope that figures will be available next year to indicate how it has operated in terms of numbers of men involved so that we may perhaps next year if necessary—if we are all still here—have an opportunity of reconsidering the matter with a view to introducing any further improvements which experience proves to have become necessary.

General Sir George Jeffreys: I believe that Members on both sides of the Committee are anxious that the Regular soldier should have every possible advantage given to him, and that he should serve under definitely more favourable terms than the National Service man. It is desirable that we should make it perfectly clear that the Regular soldier, the man who engages for a long period of Regular service, should have better conditions of service than the man who comes when he is told and does the minimum that he has to do. Every possible inducement should be given to the National Service man to make up his mind at the earliest possible moment to extend his service. I can see no reason why any good service put in as a National Service man should not, in due course, count towards his service for pension.
I have great sympathy, as I believe every Regular soldier must have, with the points which were put forward by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). It is a tremendous difficulty to find not only a home in the Service for a long-service man but also a home for him when eventually he has to leave the Service. I have had considerable correspondence with the Under-Secretary of


State as regards certain soldiers in my constituency, where there is one station, Borden Camp, which has risen, within my lifetime and memory, out of a strip of Whitehill Common. It has become not only a camp but a town, which has arisen on the outskirts of the camp to serve that camp, and also a very considerable Government and War Department establishment or group of establishments.
When long-service soldiers have to give up their quarters, as obviously they must do when they leave the Service, it is very difficult indeed for them, even if they are employed by Government in these establishments, as is frequently the case, to find anywhere to live. While I agree with the hon. Member for Dudley that local authorities should be urged and even expected to provide quarters, yet they have a different point of view. Their viewpoint is that they have to provide houses for their own population who have always been there, and that this "mushroom" population, if I may use that expression, which has arisen because of the Government having a large group of military establishments there, is rather out of the way. They take the view that if they are to provide quarters or houses for men on leaving the Service they should be given by the Ministry of Health an extra allotment of houses beyond what is allotted to other local authorities which have not to cater for unusual commitments of this kind. I hope that that will be borne in mind by the hon. Gentleman and the War Office.
I would also remind them that there is an Act, passed last year, which authorises the borrowing of money for the building of married quarters. I suggest that that provision might be made greater use of than is perhaps always the case at present. I hope that the Committee will agree to this Clause, but I also hope that the hon. Gentleman and his War Office colleagues will keep it under review and see whether it is not possible to improve it in some respects, at all events before next year, or possibly before this Bill becomes law.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish to emphasise and endorse everything that the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) has said about the necessity for seeing that the soldier is guaranteed a decent house after his 22 years' service.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I very nearly stopped the hon. and gallant Member when he was dealing with that point.

Mr. Hughes: I certainly did not rise to any point of order, because although I sensed that the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield was rather trespassing on some ground which was familiar to me, I thought that though his remarks were out of order they were apposite to the argument on this Clause.
I do not share the optimism of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), who seemed to think that we could look forward to an increase in the number of National Service men who wish to become members of the Regular Army. Some recent figures relevant to this point were given in the "News Chronicle" in an interesting study of National Service men's conditions in Berlin. The conclusion was that only three per cent. of the National Service men agree to join the Regular Forces.
I can understand that, because when I was in Berlin recently I went out early one morning and met some British soldiers. I believe that they were in the Durham Light Infantry. I asked one what he thought of Army conditions in Berlin, and he replied "Bloody awful." I am afraid that that is the general opinion of the National Service men in Berlin. It is also the view of National Service men everywhere, in whatever sphere of military operations they may be engaged. It is also the view of the Regular soldier. I do not understand the point of view of the Regular Service man who, after 22 years, comes to think over the problem, "Am I to continue for a further five years?" My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has pointed out that the considerations are largely social and economic, and that it is not a question of wishing to continue his profession because a man has any particular love of the profession, but—

Mr. Wigg: That is not true. Obviously, a man with 15 years' service who has a family is concerned about the well-being of his family. I can assure my hon. Friend that there are many men who, when they leave the Service, regret that they cannot do it all over again.

Mr. Hughes: That is exactly the point I wish to emphasise. The argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is that what finally decides the serving soldier with this long experience is the well-being of his wife and family.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Gentleman also said that most of these fellows do not like the Army and want to get out of it. That is untrue.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has a greater experience of the Army than I have. I fully concede that part of the argument. His further argument was that the serving soldier was actuated at the end of his time by whether or not he could get a job, by consideration of the education of his children and by whether or not he could get a house. I submit that these are the important factors. I do not foresee that, without these determining factors, we are likely to get soldiers who wish to serve from the point of view of giving their military experience.
At the end of the 22 years the serving soldier has to face the position that society outside has so little use for him that he may be compelled to enlist for a further five years. That has been illustrated recently in Scotland where after 22 years, soldiers who had given the best of their lives in the Service were not only refused accommodation but their wives and children were evicted from the barracks in the town of Ayr. As long as that position exists, as long as we do not cater for the housing of these Servicemen, we shall be up against this almost insoluble problem.

4.45 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), must bear in mind that when he talks to soldiers in Berlin or anywhere else—I admit that perhaps he did not choose the very best regiment in Berlin—he will find that they will usually give him the same answer about their conditions and quarters in whatever part of the world they are serving, let alone in Berlin.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Especially early in the morning.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), said that that is not necessarily an indication that

the soldier wants to get out of the Army. I assure the hon. Member for South Ayrshire that that is true.
I support this Clause because it is a step in the right direction although, as the hon. Member for Dudley said, it is not by any means a final solution. We want to make sure that all the conditions which will apply to a soldier at the beginning of his service will show him that here is a career, a career in which if he puts his back into it, he can make a success and reach high rank. Therefore, the longer period that is available to him, the more opportunity he has and the more encouragement there is for him to do everything he can to get on. This is at his option: there is no compulsion about the greater length of service. This suggestion in itself is sound.
On the question whether or not the two-year period of National Service should count, there can be no two opinions. I have known in my service, which is fairly long, a great many cases where men have had a sense of grievance because some little part of their time, which they have regarded as being as much a part of their service as any of the rest of it, was not allowed to count. This has annoyed them intensely.
It is the first year of service, in whatever unit it may be, which is the hardest. There is a great deal to be learned. The man is torn out of civilian life with all its slap-dash civilian ways. He is put into uniform and told what to do, and he gets into trouble if he does not do it. In the second year he begins to appreciate the life a bit more. But if he thinks that the two years' National Service are to be wasted as far as they affect pension and everything else, he says, "This is not much of a show, anyway. Why should I not count the first two years?" Those two years are just as much service as are the first two years of any Regular recruit. There is no doubt that they should be allowed to count. I hope that the Minister will say that he will look into the question and see what can be done.
We want Regular soldiers terribly badly. To get them, we must make the conditions as good as possible. Here is a possibility of making a career more attractive. I would utter a word of warning to the Minister. If he hopes to get these soldiers for long periods to give up their lives to the Army or the Air Force,


but particularly the Army, he must realise that one of the greatest deterrents is the almost certain knowledge that a man has when he joins a regiment that, for almost all of the rest of his service he will never see that regiment again. That is a great deterrent. I know that those remarks do not apply to this Clause and obviously it is a matter which I cannot discuss at length; but it is a matter which will seriously affect those considering the career which this Clause opens up to them. I hope that later we shall hear something on that point.

Brigadier Thorp: I wish to ask two questions. Clause 5 (6) says:
References in this section to periods of service shall, except so far as the context otherwise requires, be construed as including references to periods served in the reserve.
I should like to know what those words mean. Surely, they do not mean that a man can go on the Reserve and then come back to the Regular Army and count that period in the 15 years, when he is applying to stay on for over the 22 years? It may be that I do not properly understand the words. I should like to have that point cleared up.
I support what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan). People have been saying that the Regulars will feel it wrong if the National Service men have the same privileges as them. Let us think of a Regular recruit joining at 18 years of age. He is not at that moment thinking about the chap who is coming in as a National Service man, and I do not think he will feel that the National Service man, in 15 years' time, ought to do two more years before receiving the same privileges. At the end of his 15 years, I do not believe a Regular soldier would say that, since his friend next door had done only 13 years and two years of National Service, he should not, therefore, be able to receive those privileges. I think that would be drawing it too far, and I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider this matter and include the period of National Service in the period of 15 years.

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: I should like to have a little clarification on this Clause, because I am not quite clear why it has been drawn only

to apply to the Army Act. Is it unnecessary to apply it to the Air Force Act? Is the Air Force already catered for? Does the Army Act cover Air Force personnel, and, if not, would it not be wise to include the Air Force in the same facilities? Clause 5 specifically refers to the soldier who has re-engaged, and it is for that reason that I draw attention to this point.
Secondly, does the Bill as a whole apply to women? Section 176 (a) of the original Act refers to the Women's Auxiliary Air Force, and states that its personnel shall be included henceforward as being subject to the Act. If that is so, ought we not to amend the Title? Or, perhaps it has been amended already, now that the organisation has been re-named the Women's Royal Auxiliary Air Force. Otherwise, we would surely be out of order in applying this Act to any women's Services. Perhaps we could have some further clarification on those two small points.

Mr. M. Stewart: If I may I shall reply first to some of the points of detail which have been made. The right hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) asked whether "original" in fact meant "current." I am advised that it does, and that, in the Army Act, "original" means the term of service which the man is serving at the time when we look at him for this purpose; and that is, indeed, what it does mean.
The hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) asked me, if I got his question rightly, whether pensions would increase concurrently with extension. The answer is "Yes." The answer to another question which was raised about pensions is that the period of National Service served prior to entering on a Regular engagement does count for pension, although it does not count for the term of re-engagement, nor does it count for the purposes of this Clause. It does count, however, and perhaps this is its most important feature, for pension.
One hon. Member asked me whether a period of service on the Reserve would count, and the answer to that is "Yes." In the example which he gave, if a man entered into an engagement to serve so many years with the Colours and so many on Reserve, and spent his reserve


time actually on Reserve, it would count for the 15 years, as it does count, under the Army Act at present, towards the period of 21 years at the end of which he could re-engage. I do not think it would be reasonable to alter that principle.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) pointed out very rightly that it would be quite wrong to suppose that we have solved, or anything like solved, the problem of getting men to serve for longer periods of service merely by means of this particular concession. Though it is a valuable concession, clearly it is by no means the whole of the answer to the problem. I must congratulate my hon. Friend on the ingenuity with which he then succeeded in projecting into the debate a number of very useful things that we might do in order to make service more attractive to serious and responsible men who want to make it a career.
Other hon. Members were not slow to take advantage of the gap which my hon. Friend had created, but I think that they will not regard me as in any way belittling the importance of what they said if I now say that it would be inappropriate at this moment to pursue all the points they raised. The importance of providing a proper opportunity of employment when the man finally leaves the Service is fully realised, and we are certainly able to make very much better provision in that respect today than in time past. The extent to which, by agreement, both with nationalised and private industry, we have secured guaranteed vacancies for ex-Regular Army men shows that we are making very much better provision in that respect than used to be the case.
Nor are we unmindful of the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) on the desirability of seeing that a man has somewhere to live, although I really think that I should be going outside the terms of this Clause if I pursued that matter more than to say that we quite recognise that, in what we are doing here to make an Army career more attractive to a serious man with family responsibilities, we are only making one of the many contributions that might be made to that problem, and that we must have it constantly before us.
Further, we must regard the provisions made in this Clause at this stage as ex-

perimental. The Committee will appreciate that, while it is possible under this Clause for the Army Council to make regulations whereby the men may elect to continue after 15 years' service, it is also possible for the Army Council to make regulations fixing a figure between 15 and 21 years, and I think the Committee will agree that it is reasonable that the Army Council should have that degree of latitude. It is probable that we should begin by fixing the figure at 18 years.
Similarly, there is latitude as to the amount of continuance that may be granted at any one time, and it is probable that we shall think in terms of providing, in the case of continuance for a period of four years, that at the end of the second of those four years, the man may elect for a further period of continuance. Quite clearly, whatever arrangements we begin with, we should have to see as we went along how it worked out and be prepared to make alterations, within the fairly wide latitude allowed in the Act, as appear to be in the best interests of the Service. These were points mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger).

Mr. Bellenger: I did not specifically raise that point. What I was after was this. This Clause is really complicated, even to Members of Parliament with some experience, and therefore, it would be necessary for an Army Council Instruction to be issued to explain to the Army and the Royal Air Force exactly what the men can do, how they can do it and what it will mean to them in terms of promotion, increased pensions and so forth.

Mr. Stewart: We shall certainly make it quite clear to the Forces what is the effect of this alteration. My right hon. Friend mentioned pensions and promotion, but these points only arise incidentally out of this Clause, which deals solely with the time within which men may re-engage.

5.0 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I thought the hon. Gentleman indicated that continuance would be fixed by regulation, but he will see from the Clause as drafted that


A soldier of the regular forces who has completed the prescribed period…may give notice to his commanding officer of his desire to continue in His Majesty's service in the regular forces, after the completion of twenty-two years' service, for such period, not exceeding five years, as may be specified in the notice";
that is, notice to be given by the soldier. In other words, it is such period as the soldier himself elects to apply for and not as laid down by the War Office. I think the hon. Gentleman was wrong. It is important, and I should be glad if he would clear that up.

Mr. Stewart: Yes, I take the point made by the hon. Member. As I understand it, it is as the hon. Member has just said. If I am mistaken on that point, at a later stage in our deliberations I will make clear what is the exact position, but I think he is right.
Another point of detail raised was why there is no similar provision for the Air Force, but if hon. Members will look at the provisions of the Air Force Act they will see that members of that Force, under Section 84 of that Act, can already re-engage for a period running up to 55 years of age. Owing to their different arrangements, they have no need for this particular provision.
I want to turn now to the main question which arises from our debate on this Clause. The Committee will appreciate that, in deciding the time at which a man should be allowed to apply for continuance, there are two conflicting considerations that have to be borne in mind. One is that if we do not allow him to do it until too late, he will say to himself when considering continuing beyond 12 years, "If I go on beyond 12 years, I have to wait until I have done my 21st year of service before I can ask if they will take me on again. If they say "No," it will be too late to fit myself eventually for civilian life. I do not want to run that risk and I want to go out of the Army now."
That is the danger if we make the date too late, and it is to guard against that danger that we make this alteration. If we make it too early, what we shall find then is that one will get the Army put under an obligation for a long period ahead to accept the man. If, for example, it were possible for a man after 12 years to elect to continue beyond his 22nd year and if, as might well happen, that

opportunity were extensively used one would get the structure of the Army becoming increasingly rigid owing to the number of men who had secured an opportunity of continuing.
If one grants the opportunity to elect continuance too soon, or if it is extended too widely, one creates both too rigid an age structure in the Service and too rigid a rank structure, with bad results on promotion and ultimately disappointment for those who remain in the Service. What one has to do is to strike a balance between those two considerations. But there is a reason why one should be careful not to extend too readily the right of early election to continue. That is why, of course, in Clause 5 of this Bill we do not extend it to the non-careerist soldiers referred to in subsection (2) of the proposed new Section 85 of the Army Act, and I think that enjoys the general agreement of the Committee.
That is a factor to be borne in mind when considering whether one ought to give the National Service man the right to count his two years towards those 15 years. There is general need for caution in not allowing this right of continuance to be exercised too soon by too many people. That is one of the first considerations to be borne in mind and it is in general an argument against allowing National Service men to count the two years. I am not putting it forward as a decisive argument in itself, but it is one of the factors. If we enable this privilege to be exercised too soon by too many people, we ultimately destroy its value because of its effects on prospects of promotion in the Army; but I do not put it as more than one of the points to be considered.
Now we have to look at the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). Is it desirable that we should have National Service men electing early to become Regular soldiers or would we rather have a greater number of them electing to do so? If one puts the question in that form, then clearly what we want is the greatest number. But I think the Committee will appreciate the point that, naturally, we rejoice when they do so early because once they have done so we can count them, if I may so put it, as birds in hand. The others may or may not elect to do so later.
There is here, therefore, a somewhat nice balance of arguments. If we do anything that, on the whole, makes it a more attractive course for a man to postpone the decision whether or not he will become a Regular soldier it may well be that subsequently that would reduce the numbers of those who did become Regular soldiers. Further, it is urged that if we allow the National Service man to count in the two years for this purpose it will be an inducement to men to become Regular soldiers. Up to a point it will, but we ought to be careful not to magnify the nature of that inducement.
Can we suppose that a young man will say, "I am now nearing the completion of two years' National Service. I am in my 21st or 22nd year. If I join the Army for a period of 12 years and if, after that I re-engaged for a further term, and if I then want to decide whether I will continue beyond 22 years I have to wait 15 years from now at least before I can put in an application for such continuance, whereas if only Parliament in its wisdom had altered this Clause I should have had to wait only 13 years." It is very difficult to believe that is going to affect his decision to any great extent. That is why I could not feel that the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely was really presenting us with a correct antithesis.
We have no reason to suppose we are sacrificing numbers. We are quite likely to secure early enlistment, and earlier enlistment may very well mean greater numbers. I should have thought it was an open question. I have endeavoured to give my best attention to the arguments advanced on both sides, though after the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low), had expressed one opinion and the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely had expressed the opposite I was a little startled when the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) said there can be no two opinions. I am bound to say that I think there can be two opinions.
At the moment we are making a concession—although I confess I do not altogether like the word "concession" in this respect; we are making a more just and reasonable arrangement for the Regular careerist soldier, and, at any rate for the present, we are not bringing in the period of National Service. I think it is reasonable to begin in that way. It is a

matter which, if the balance of argument appeared more clearly or more certainly, could be altered by subsequent legislation.

Major Legge-Bourke: Before the hon. Gentleman concludes, I should like first to thank him for the attention he has given to the point which I raised. I should like to tell the Committee that I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman has just said. I think the argument he has put forward is convincing. I am quite open to persuasion on this matter, and I have been persuaded by what he has said. But there is one point to which I was addressing myself when I think I saw the hon. Gentleman nod assent—when I said that, as I understood it, a man who in his full-time National Service does decide to become a Regular is allowed to count the unexpired portion of his full-time service. Although I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument, I think he will agree it is a very short time, and I think the argument works both ways.

Mr. Stewart: Yes, I did assent to that. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was correct on that point. That, of course, narrows the whole scope of what we are arguing about. I think that, on balance, the Committee will be well advised to accept the Clause as it is, and I trust they are prepared to do so.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The Committee is grateful to the Under-Secretary for the explanation he has given. At the risk of being accused of joining in an unholy league between Front Benches, I should like to say that I was glad he accepted the proposition with which I began my argument, that this was a very balanced question and that the arguments on both sides were fairly equal. I think on the whole, if I may be allowed to give this advice to the Committee, we should be wise to accept this Clause as it stands, as an experiment, remembering that these matters are fortunately reviewed each year and that there is an opportunity to consider it when we come to next year's Bill. That certainly shows the value of this debate. A good deal has been discovered by all of us about the meaning of this Clause which was obscure before. We are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) for raising an important point. As I understand it, under this system it rests with the man or non-commissioned officer—

Mr. Stewart: I could not have made the point clear. I believe the right hon. Gentleman is correct, but I did say that I was in some doubt about the point, and I will inform hon. Members at a later stage of our deliberations.

Mr. Macmillan: What is worrying me is what will be the later stage. I do not think there are likely to be any other Amendments; I do not expect the Report stage will be other than formal, and perhaps by the Third Reading—

Mr. Stewart: I think it will be possible to raise the point at a later stage.

Mr. Macmillan: I thought it was proposed to go straight on with all the stages of the Bill. Perhaps it would be possible for the hon. Gentleman to tell us this. According to the interpretation which was put before the Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South. I think it is perfectly clear that within a period of five years it is for the man or non-commissioned officer to say "I want to go on for another year"—or it may be two or three years, or anything up to five years. The man gives that notice. Of course, the competent military authority may or may not approve. It is not a question of a general regulation by which everybody must go on for one, three or five years. It is a matter of a special application made individually by the man himself, and receiving the individual approval of the competent military authority. That appears to be what this Clause would seem to mean.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Stewart: If I may add a word on that point, I am afraid I must correct the impression which I previously gave to the hon. Member for Hendon, South. It is true, as the Measure stands, that the man can put in a notice and that apparently the period of his continuance is the period specified in the notice. But, of course, the Service authority is not under an obligation to accept that continuance. They can say to him "You have put in a notice asking for five years' continuance. We cannot accept that, but if you will put in for one, two, three or four years"—or whatever is appropriate to the Service authority—"we can accept that." That means that while the Act says what the hon. Member for Hendon, South, properly pointed out, in the last resort it will lie with the Service authority and not with the man.

Mr. Macmillan: This indeed will revive many memories of our relations with the War Office. If the Secretary of State for War had thought fit to attend our debates on the Army, he would have learned something about this. It is a peculiar fact that neither of the two Secretaries of State who have such an interest in the passage of this Bill—for without it the great bodies over which they preside would become illegal conspiracies—have thought fit to appear. If they had done so, they would have learned something, because this tortuous machine is rather typical of the working of that particular bureaucratic engine, the War Office.
It still remains true, however, that it is not a matter of general regulation to say "We will accept notices from everybody for three years." What the hon. Gentleman, who is always so courteous to us, means is that each man makes an individual application, but that it is the competent military authority who accepts it either in full or in part. It is an individual proposal and not a generalised one over the whole body of men. It is useful to have learned that fact in this debate on this Clause, and I think my hon. Friends would wish to accept the Clause and wish it well.
There is one other point which comes to mind. I do not claim to be as expert in this matter as many of my hon. Friends, but if this is all so difficult for us, we should take steps to see that it is made easier for the serving soldier whom this is supposed to benefit. If the authorities who preside over this matter could bring themselves to write clear, simple, grammatical English—and if they are unable to do it themselves they should hire the services of men who can do it—it would be of great benefit in that we should get the result which we all hope to get from this Clause.
While I appreciate what the Undersecretary says about the balance of the difficulty between making the decision too late or too early. I do not think he need worry lest he should get such an enormous number of applications that he would clog up the Army with too many people taking too long. If I were in his position or that of the Secretary of State, my anxiety would be to see that this Clause and the general conditions to which the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) referred


—whether they were in order or not—are attractive enough to make this long-term service really acceptable to the number of men whom we want. If there were any question as to the side on which to weight the balance, I should be only too anxious to get, for long-term engagements, as many as possible of the kind of men who want to stay and who would benefit the Army by prolonging their service.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(AMENDMENTS OF PROVISIONS OF ARMY ACT RELATING TO SERVICE PROPERTY, &C.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Low: Would the Under-Secretary please explain why it is necessary to have this Clause? Its result is to remove from the Army Act the use of the word "regimental," which is well in line with the policy which some parts of the War Office have tried to thrust upon the Army for several years in the immediate past. However, I do not want to go into the importance of the regimental spirit at the moment, because I think we have done so on many occasions, and the Undersecretary, if he did not believe in the regimental spirit before he attended debates such as this, will at least know what some of us, including the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), think about this important matter.
I want to know why it has been considered necessary to alter the wording of the Army Act. Perhaps I may point out an example of what happens when we change words which have been long understood to have a meaning and a place in the Army Act. In subsection (3), instead of the simple words "stores in regimental charge" we are in future to have the words:
stores in the charge of a body of His Majesty's military forces (other than Dominion forces).
Why is it necessary to substitute those words? Sometimes I wonder whether quite a lot of paper and print could not be saved.

Mr. Stewart: I fully appreciate the feeling which hon. Members in all parts of the

Committee have about a change of this nature, but in the few words I want to say I hope to make it clear to them that this is no attack on the regimental spirit. After all, as hon. Members know, the regimental spirit does not depend on the wording of the Army Act. This takes up a point made by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low), at the conclusion of his speech: the wording of an Act of Parliament is not intended primarily to be graceful. [Laughter.] It is intended to be clear beyond any doubt, if not clear at first sight. The object of an Act of Parliament is to cover, so far as can be done, all the contingencies which are likely to arise. If we are to do that, as in the classic publication of this type—Sir Ernest Gower's book "Plain Words "—we cannot at the same time be either very clear at first sight or graceful.
The purpose of an Act is, therefore, to establish definitely what the law is. The difficulty is that the word "regimental," used in certain contexts as an adjective to qualify
institution, necessaries, books, band, mess or property
has been found to be unsatisfactory and to give rise to results which are the very last results which those who particularly champion the regimental spirit would like to see. For example, there was a case of a man charged with the theft of regimental property. It turned out that it was the property of a transit camp and, on examination, it became clear that a charge of having stolen regimental property could not be sustained. The conviction which had been recorded against the man for stealing regimental property had to be set aside.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Surely the mistake was made in the wording of the charge. The man should have been charged with stealing garrison property, not with stealing regimental property. That example has nothing to do with the case.

Mr. Stewart: But I think hon. Members will agree that fundamentally the nature of the offence is the same, from whatever unit the property was stolen. It is not desirable that it should be more difficult than is necessary to lay charges properly in such cases. What we want is to make the administration of the law as simple as possible. Fundamentally, to


steal Service property is the same offence whether the property is described as "regimental" or whether it is the property of some unit or transit camp and cannot be so described. It is easier for good and simple administration to have one form of words which can be used to cover all such cases.
That is why we wish to amend the Army Act so as to substitute the word "service," for the words "regimental" and "garrison." It is not as if the word "service" were in any way a derogatory word or one without dignity or meaning. If hon. Members apply their minds to it, I do not think they can maintain that to make this reasonable alteration for the purpose of simpler administration will damage regimental esprit de corps in any way. To suggest that it would do so would be pressing the argument to fantastic lengths. As to the phrase to which the hon. Member for Blackpool, North, took particular exception, he will see that in that instance the mere substitution of the word "service" for the word "regimental" would not give us the desired result. In the pursuit not of literary elegance but of precise meaning we have put in the definition of the word "service" which is contained in subsection (4). I hope the Committee will be prepared to accept it.

Sir G. Jeffreys: May I ask for one further explanation? Does the expression "service" cover private property, such as mess property, whether belonging to the officers' mess or the sergeants' mess, which has been bought not by Government money but by the money of the members of the mess? That is definitely regimental property but, if it were stolen, would it be covered by the expression "service property"?

Mr. Stewart: Yes. In no case would anything which is now covered by the term "regimental property" be excluded from the new definition introduced by the Clause.

Colonel Gomme Duncan: The explanation of the new Clause which the Undersecretary has given is completely unsatisfying. He gave us an example of the very badly framed charge, about which the officer concerned should have been reprimanded, and on that sole and slim plank we are apparently to build the new Clause. For an example of confusion I

invite the attention of hon. Members to paragraph (c). When we are told about simplification I invite their attention to that paragraph.
Yet apparently for that sole reason we are to change words which have been well understood in the Army for generations and which, so far as I know, have presented no difficulty at all. Is it necessary when something is working smoothly to produce a Clause which to my mind suggests less smooth working in the future? It reminds me of the time in Army hospitals when the patient was always awakened to be given a refreshing draught which, he was told, would make him sleep better. That is the sort of thing we are doing in this Clause. I cannot understand why the Clause is necessary and still less can I understand why the hon. Gentleman has not been provided with a better reason than the flimsy reason he has produced. No doubt it is the best he can find, but it does not seem to me to justify the Clause.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I want to support what my hon. and gallant Friend has just said. The alteration seems to be entirely unnecessary. I do not understand why anybody should have gone to the trouble to draft a Clause such as this which, in my view, is quite unnecessary. I will not weary the Committee with examples, but while we have been sitting here I have been thinking of a series of common cases which, as will become obvious, in the course of time to the people who are to administer the Act, will be ludicrous and fantastic. I ask the hon. Gentleman to give further thought to this matter and to reconsider it.
During the course of the Army debate, I thought it necessary to attack the size of the War Office and its organisation. I will not go into that subject now, but is this not an example of how some people appear to waste their time in the War Office trying to find something to do? They produce a fantastic Clause like this, which in my view is unnecessary.

Brigadier Thorp: I support what my hon. and gallant Friends have said. I can see no reason for the Clause and I am not satisfied with the arguments of the Under-Secretary. Would he repeat an answer which he gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) on the subject of regimental property? Is the silver in the


sergeants' mess covered by the words "service property"?

Mr. Stewart: Yes.

Brigadier Thorp: It does not take property away from anybody?

Mr. Stewart: No.

Brigadier Thorp: I wanted to be clear on that. I do not think any argument advanced from the opposite side of the House justifies the Clause in any way at all.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Wigg: Hon. and gallant Gentlemen who oppose this Clause overlook the fact that in their day in the Service, members of the legal profession did not serve in the ranks. "They do now, and that is the explanation why somebody has got away with it. There is obviously a world of difference between taking something from a transit camp and taking something from the regiment to which the man belongs. In the first category it would be regarded not as "pinching" but as "winning." In the second category it would be a gross piece of dishonesty which ought to be dealt with. I think we had better let the Government have this Clause.

Major Legge-Bourke: Has the hon. Gentleman ever been in a transit camp where there has been anything worth pinching?

Mr. H. Macmillan: We shall not press this Clause to a Division. We have had quite an interesting example of how things work today to make everything more complicated the more slender our resources of manpower become. We have nearly a whole page of printed matter because somebody did not make the right charge and charged a man with taking regimental property when he ought to have charged him with taking garrison property. We have in another part of the Clause to define the word "service." It would have been much simpler to have had one small definition to define the word "garrison," in which the whole thing could have been done. The regimental tradition having been properly sustained and the tradition of the legal profession having been duly illustrated, I hope we shall allow this Clause to pass without a Division.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(AMENDMENT OF S. 183 OF ARMY ACT.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Bellenger: Do I understand that what happens in the Army Educational Corps at the moment is that, when a man has passed his instruction, he is automatically promoted to sergeant, and that this Clause will enable him to be reduced to the ranks but to no lower non-commissioned rank if he is found guilty of some misdemeanour? It is not quite clear to me whether there is in the Army Educational Corps any lower rank than sergeant to which he could be reduced like any other non-commissioned officer if he is found guilty of an offence.

Mr. M. Stewart: In the Army Educational Corps there are lower ranks than sergeant, though they are only the men who are undergoing training, or have been transferred to it from other corps. If a sergeant or above were reduced to the ranks as a result of this Clause, it is possible to have the man below the rank of sergeant in the Army Educational Corps, but what would be done in practice is that, if he had been transferred from another corps, he might be transferred back, or to some other corps, or in certain cases he might be discharged from the Army. If that is the point which concerns my right hon. Friend, there would not be, as it were, a new sort of category of reduced sergeants appearing in the Army Educational Corps.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(AMENDMENTS OF S. 91 OF ARMY ACT AND AIR FORCE ACT.)

(1) In paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of section ninety-one of the Army Act (which makes provision, as respects soldiers of unsound mind who have homes in Northern Ireland, for their reception into hospitals in Northern Ireland on the application of the Army Council or an officer deputed by them), for the words "apply for the soldier's reception into that hospital," there shall be substituted the words "by order direct that the soldier shall be received into that hospital," and in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of section ninety-one of the Air Force Act (which makes corresponding provision as respects airmen of unsound mind who have homes in


Northern Ireland), for the words "apply for the airman's reception into that hospital," there shall be substituted the words "by order direct that the airman shall be received into that hospital."

(2) In subsection (4) of section ninety-one of the Army Act and in subsection (4) of section ninety-one of the Air Force Act, for the words from "and an application under paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of this section," to the end of the subsection, there shall be substituted the words "and an order under paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of this section shall have the like effect, and the like proceedings shall be taken thereon, as if it were an order made by a judicial authority under subsection (2) of section sixteen of the Mental Health Act (Northern Ireland). 1948.—[Mr. M. Stewart.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a Second time."—[Mr. M. Stewart.]

Major Legge-Bourke: Would the hon. Gentleman explain why, after a year in which to decide what to do, it has been necessary to put this new Clause on the Order Paper?

Mr. M. Stewart: This is a very tiny point. It does no more than make clear that it is as mandatory on an appropriate hospital in Northern Ireland to receive a soldier discharged as of unsound mind as it is mandatory on a hospital in the United Kingdom. That is the law all the time, and this new Clause does no more than make it perfectly clear.

Major Legge-Bourke: I appreciate that. My point is that other alterations to the Army Act are embodied in the Bill. Why is it necessary to put this new Clause on the Order Paper as an afterthought when there has been a whole year to think about it?

Mr. Stewart: There had to be discussions with the Northern Ireland Government about this, and the Northern Ireland Government have in fact agreed to it.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: What would happen if the soldier of unsound mind were one of the lawyers referred to earlier

by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg)?

Mr. Stewart: The law would still apply to him, even then.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, with an Amendment: as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

5.36 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: I should like to repeat the question which is asked every year, and that is whether or not it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to reprint this Bill as it will appear in the Manual of Military Law completely amended. Every year we try to protect the interests of those unfortunate people who have to put in all the Amendments we make; it is the most appalling fatigue and wastes the time of an immense number of people. If only we could ensure that an amended edition of the Act appeared every year it would help the Army a very great deal. Can we have some indication of when there will be a properly amended new edition?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: If it is in order, may we now have an answer to the question whether women are affected by the matters we have been discussing?

Mr. M. Stewart: The answer to the second question is "No." I am afraid I cannot give the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) a definite assurance, but I hope we may be able to satisfy him on the point before long.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — SEA FISH INDUSTRY BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Donnelly: On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? The new Clause—(Definition)—standing in my name and that of other hon. Members is meaningless without a number of Amendments which come later on. I wonder whether you would be agreeable to our discussing the whole question of a Welsh Committee for the white fish industry on the new Clause?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think it would be easier to discuss together the new Clause and the proposed Amendment in page 2, line 13, to leave out from "constituted" to "for" in line 14, and to insert:
two committees (hereafter in this Act referred to as 'the Scottish and Welsh Committees').

The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Thomas Williams): Since the whole of the Amendments relating to Wales are devoted to one purpose, would it not be to the general advantage if we had one debate covering the whole field instead of sub-dividing it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I anticipated that if we took the new Clause the Government would resist it, in which case all the other Amendments will fall. I thought that would perhaps save time.

Mr. Donnelly: Would you be agreeable to our discussing the whole question on the new Clause?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The new Clause plus the Amendment to which I referred, concerning the Welsh Committee. That would meet the point.

Mr. Donnelly: Thank you very much.

New Clause.—(DEFINITION.)

For the purposes of this Act, the expression "Wales" shall include "Monmouthshire."—[Mr. Donnelly.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Donnelly: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This proposal is supported by a very wide range of opinion in Wales—by the

hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts), President of the Liberal Party of Wales, by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. D. Williams), who is chairman of the Welsh Parliamentary Party, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins), who is its secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), who is chairman of the Welsh Labour Group, and also by the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George), who, if she holds no official position, can at least be claimed as a national institution. Thus the supporters of the proposal include almost everybody who believes in national unity—except, naturally, hon. Members of the Conservative Party, who are of small consequence, being the smallest party in Wales.
The proposal and its effects, I submit, are very reasonable. There is no sectarian or parochial interest in proposing this special Welsh Committee for Wales, and although some people from time to time pronounce my name to rhyme with Llanelly, I should have thought that my antecedents would not have led anyone to suppose that I would put forward any narrow nationalist point of view. I should make clear at once that we are very much in favour of the Bill as a whole, and I would say again, what I said on Second Reading, that I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing forward a Bill dealing with the problems of the fishing industry, when we have been mourning the problems of the fishing industry for years without doing anything effective about them. It is for the sole purpose of securing the full benefit of this wise, far-sighted Bill for Wales and the Welsh fishing industry that we are putting forward these Amendments tonight.
We appreciate that there are special conditions affecting Scotland and Northern Ireland which make it necessary or advantageous to have a special committee for those countries. I appreciate that there are administrative matters concerning Scotland which do not quite compare with the administrative set up which exists in Wales. We in Wales are in no way jealous of our Scottish colleagues. We simply congratulate them on the effective machinery which exists in Scotland, and we are only asking for a similar kind of committee for Wales, for, to some extent,


the same reasons, but also—and, perhaps, to a greater extent—for different reasons.
First of all, there are some extenuating circumstances in Wales so far as distances are concerned. This, indeed, is an exactly similar problem which faces Scotland. I see the Minister of Labour on the Treasury Bench. He once came down to my constituency, and he fully appreciates the difficulties of rail travel down there. He assured me that he would never come by train again, and I am sure he will be able, if he speaks to the Minister of Agriculture, to convince him of the very real problems of rail transport in West Wales. Equally, the hon. Member for Merioneth is a martyr to the railway system.
This problem of transport is particularly difficult in the white fish industry, because I understand that the White Fish Authority have their headquarters at Harrogate, which is doubly far from Wales. I have been assured, very generously, by some representatives of the White Fish Authority that they are prepared to come to London to meet Welsh representatives, but, as we have always felt that Whitehall was remote enough, so we feel that Harrogate is doubly remote so far as getting effective action is concerned. It is very difficult to arrange a meeting place on mutual ground, and Harrogate is very difficult to get at from Wales, and, therefore, we feel that it would help the work of my right hon. Friend's Department if we had a separate Welsh Committee dealing with the problems of Wales.
5.45 p.m.
Second, we submit that, although the catch landed by the Welsh fishing industry is not of the volume of the catch landed by the fishing industry in Scotland or in England, nevertheless it plays a very large part in the Welsh economy; and the Minister of Agriculture, I am sure, agrees with this, because he said so in a letter which he sent me some time ago dealing with this point. The fishing round the coasts of Wales can be divided into two main sections, the inshore fishing along the western coast, and the middle distance trawler fishing from the port of Milford Haven, which is the fourth or fifth largest of the trawler ports in the United Kingdom.
My right hon. Friend knows only too well that the inshore fishermen specialise in special quality, high-grade fish. I see that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) agrees with me, and rightly, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. E. Evans) also agrees. I am sure that the high quality of the fish landed by the inshore fishermen of Wales cannot be compared in any way with the catches of the long-distance trawlers from ports such as Hull, for instance.

Commander Pursey: Nonsense.

Mr. Donnelly: I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend will agree with me that there is all the difference between them. Therefore, the inshore fishermen deserve some quite different treatment from that of the fishermen of the long-distance trawler ports such as Hull, Lowestoft, and so on. The same argument applies to the high quality fishing port of Milford Haven, which deals with fish of far higher quality than that landed at the fishing port of Hull, and I am sure that again I can carry my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull, East (Commander Pursey), with me on that point.
The third point which I submit, in addition to the distance factor, is the specially high claim which can be made for an intensive drive to develop the market in South Wales—one of the problems which has been facing the fishing industry in Wales for a long time. Indeed, the problem of market development faces the representatives of the English fishing constituencies as well, and I am sure I shall be able to carry them with me on this point, as on some of the earlier points I have made. During the years of depression the organisation for selling fish in South Wales obviously was not very effective or successful. People, in the days when hon. Gentlemen opposite had the power, had not got the money to buy the fish that was landed on the quayside at Milford Haven or in many of the other fishing ports in Britain. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]
That was one of the reasons why the fishing industry languished in the years between the wars, and why fish had to be dumped back into the sea; and that was the difficulty which faced us in the years between the wars—of developing


the potential market which exists in South Wales. It is a difficulty which still exists, although to a lesser extent. There are vast potentialities for selling fish—making it accessible at reasonable cost and in good condition—to the housewives in the Welsh valleys—a market which has never been developed; and I submit that a Welsh Committee dealing with this problem, and knowing the conditions which exist in Wales, and the opportunities there are for developing the sale of fish, would be in a far better position to do something about this problem than an authority resident in some remote place like Harrogate. Here again, in this argument, I am seeking only to facilitate the working of the Bill.
Finally, there is the great importance of the white fish industry to the Welsh economy. In Cornwall and other parts of Great Britain there is an extensive tourist trade, which is more extensive than that around the Welsh coasts, and which comprises, for those parts of Britain, a staple industry. In many areas of Wales, partly because of the bad train service, there is no alternative industry available. If the men are not able to make a profit from inshore fishing, they have difficulty in making a living at all. Inshore fishing is the only possible way for them to earn a living in many of the small, remote fishing villages around the Welsh coast. If my right hon. Friend will look at the Fourth Schedule to the Bill he will see that there are a number of fishery harbours in Wales of this nature. In Carmarthen, one; Pembroke, six; Cardigan, three; Merioneth, two; Caernarvon, eight—a total of 20 in all. Although these are very small fishing harbours, they are, nevertheless, very important to the people who live in these areas.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will think that it is desirable that the Welsh fishing industry should have the maximum support of and feel that they are in the closest possible contact with the White Fish Authority and that the maximum benefits of the White Fish Authority should reach the fishermen of Wales. The most effective way of ensuring this will be to set up a Welsh Committee who are conversant with the problem and able to deal with it on the spot.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: I beg to second the Motion.
I cannot see that any possible objection can be raised by the Minister to accepting this very reasonable Clause. A week or two ago we were discussing in this House the Report of the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire, which dealt with certain problems concerning the economy of Wales, and in that report it was made clear that there are special problems in the economy of Wales. That was accepted by Members on both sides of the House. It was made clear in the Report and in the House that policies framed centrally in this country are not always adapted to the needs of Wales. The argument for a Welsh Committee does not depend on the amount of fish caught in Wales. Small though the catch may be in relation to the whole fishing industry of Great Britain, it is nevertheless an important part of the economy of the small Welsh ports; that is why it needs protection.
If proper attention is to be given to Welsh questions by this new highly centralised organisation, I think that it is essential that we should have a Welsh Committee to advise the Authority. The Bill provides for a Scottish Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am very glad to hear that hon. Members representing Scotland are enthusiastic about that fact.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: But not Cornwall.

Mr. Roberts: I have yet to learn that Cornwall is a separate country as Wales and Scotland are. The objection may be raised that there must be a special Committee for Scotland because there is a special administration of fisheries for Scotland and that this does not apply to Wales. The fact that there is no special administration of fisheries for Wales makes it, in my opinion, all the more necessary to have a special Committee to protect and develop Welsh fishing interests. If that objection is put forward we find ourselves in a vicious circle. When we ask for special bodies and organisations for Welsh affairs we are told, "You do not need them like Scotland does because Scotland has a Secretary of State, and, therefore, we must have separate bodies and organisations for


Scotland." When we say, "Give us a Welsh Secretary of State," we are told, "You do not need that because you have no special bodies and organisations for Wales." I hope that the Minister will take heed of the wide demand for what is contained in this new Clause and announce that the Government are prepared to accept it.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): When I moved the Second Reading of the Sea Fish Industry Bill a few weeks ago, I quoted from speeches made in a previous debate by the hon. Members for Lowestoft (Mr. E. Evans), Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly), and North Aberdeen (Mr. Hector Hughes), which showed absolute unanimity for a small independent authority who would be ready to take advice from all but orders from none except Ministers. The Government agreed with what we conceived to be the general view of the House. We felt that if the job was to be tackled seriously, nothing less than such a body could do it effectively. That is exactly what this Bill provides—a small body of independent persons who, we believe, are quite capable of representing the views of all sections of the industry in all parts of Great Britain.
I can understand the desire on the part of hon. Members representing Wales and of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly), in particular, if there is any doubt at all in their minds, that the interests of Wales should not be overlooked and left out in the cold. My hon. Friend made reference to the fact that the headquarters of the Authority is to be established at Harrogate, and he felt that that was a long way from Wales. The Authority feel—and I agree with them—that it would not do to keep too near to one side of the coast and they have chosen a geographical centre.
I can give hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies a categorical assurance that their interests will not be ignored. Members of the Authority have already visited Milford Haven, Cardiff, Swansea and a number of the smaller inshore fishing ports. They are well acquainted with a good many of the problems, including that of marketing, and they intend to keep the interest of Wales in the forefront, as they must, if

they are to accomplish their task, not ignore the quantity or value of the fish caught in any part of Great Britain.
I can tell hon. Members that the Authority are already considering establishing one of their most important offices in one of the ports in Wales. This, in turn, will depend on the type of local organisation for Great Britain as a whole, which is a matter yet to be settled. I want to make it clear that there is no possible question of keeping people with Welsh connections out of the administration of this Authority. Indeed, the aim when selecting these five persons—the small body which it is the wish of Members in all parts of the House to have—was to get the best talent available for the job. When the time comes for a review of membership at the end of a term of years, Welsh candidates will obviously be considered on an equal basis with any others, as indeed they were on this occasion when the Authority was set up.
6.0 p.m.
The hon. Members who moved and seconded the new Clause made some reference to the Scottish Committee. There is a sound industrial reason for that Committee which does not apply to Wales. There are very marked differences in the character of the white fish industry in Scotland. The problems in England and Wales are so similar as to make it difficult to find any difference between them. The industry in Scotland is to a far less extent based on a few big ports. The inshore fisheries in Scotland account for no less than 27 per cent. of the total value of the catch compared with 6.7 per cent. in England and 6.3 per cent. in England and Wales taken together. The problems of the Highlands and Islands have always been regarded as being different to those of any other parts of Great Britain. There are the special problems of Aberdeen arising from the distances to its main markets.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke made reference to distances between Wales and here. It is a long distance, but if we compare the value of the catch, by weight or by volume or in any other way, we find that there is a very big difference between Scotland and England and Wales. Leith and Granton have a unique marketing structure. The position in Wales is similar to that of England.


Wales has one large fishing port and two smaller ports—Milford Haven, Cardiff and Swansea—with quite a few inshore fishing ports.
The problems of Milford Haven are very like those of Fleetwood, Grimsby or Hull. They all suffer from the same difficulty where near-water fishing takes place, and that is over-fishing, lack of up-to-date equipment and vessels. There are two comparatively small fishing ports in Wales, those of Cardiff and Swansea. I need not mention the catch value, because hon. Members will know how it compares with Grimsby, Hull and Fleetwood. Cardiff and Swansea perhaps can be compared to Lowestoft, if we eliminate herrings.
My hon. Friend said that there was a marketing problem in Wales and that we ought to develop that market and have a special organisation to do it. But what does that market consist of in terms of the value of fish? Milford Haven represents about £1¾ million worth of fish, whereas Cardiff, Swansea and all the inshore smaller ports represent something in the region of about £650,000 worth of fish. It seems quite unnecessary to establish a special committee exclusively for Wales to market £650,000 of inshore fish. The balance of inshore and deep-sea fishing in Wales is about the same as for England taken as a whole.
The statement has been made on some occasions that although the total catch in Wales is not very much compared with England it does mean something to the Welsh economy. I am prepared to concede that, but on the test of the proportion of men engaged in fishing for each country we find that both have less than one-quarter of 1 per cent. of the population engaged in the fishing industry. I do not think that any case has been made out for a special committee for Wales.
It is not the importance of the Scottish fisheries themselves which is the reason for their committee, but the special nature of their fishing. The similarity between the English and Welsh problems makes it wholly unnecessary for Wales to have a separate committee, which would have little to do but would be merely a subordinate executive. If a special committee were conceded to Wales it would lead, logically and quite properly, to another new Clause appearing on the Order

Paper to establish a committee for England. It might be that we should have to establish more than one committee for England because of its diverse interests.
If Scotland, England and Wales were to have a separate committee, I do not see why my own county of Yorkshire should not also have a separate committee. We find that Hull alone is responsible for £9½ million worth of fish, as compared with £2,400,000 for Wales. Surely, then, Hull is entitled to a committee. Grimsby is also responsible for £9½ million worth, and we should have to be very strong to resist a claim from Fleetwood. I am sure that this would be contrary to what my hon. Friend for Pembroke wants. It would be an end to the effectiveness of the boards.
There will be a number of committees operating in England, Scotland, Wales and in Northern Ireland, and the effectiveness of this small, independent, impartial Authority would be completely undermined. I do not think that the fundamental problems that have been affecting this industry for such a long time would be adequately dealt with in those circumstances. The body of individuals that has been appointed to weigh all the evidence of the interests in the industry is the sort of body the House recognised on Second Reading to be the one that could do the job.
It seems to me that with all the goodwill in the world towards the Welsh fishermen and the consumer of fish in Wales, with full recognition of their transport difficulties, this Clause ought not to be accepted. There ought to be no animosity because beyond the Border there happens to be a special set-up to meet their particular problems which are dissimilar to those of England and Wales. I know that my hon. Friends are very anxious that this authority should not be hampered with four or five committees tendering them advice but should be left to collect advice and guidance from the fishing interests in England and Wales, on the west coast and on the east, and thereby help us to a final solution of these fundamental problems which have been facing the industry for a long time.

Mr. William Elwyn Jones: Could my right hon. Friend say whether there are amongst the members, designated representatives of Welsh interests?

Mr. Williams: As a matter of fact, they were not elected or appointed on a geographical basis. They were appointed because we thought that they were the best type of persons to do this particular job, but there was no hostility against Wales or Welsh connections in any kind of way.

Mr. Watkins: I was following the Minister in what he said and going with him a long way until the latter part of his speech, into which he brought something which aroused the temper of a Welshman and against which I must make a protest. I well remember that under the Agriculture Bill, the Forestry Bill and the Hill Farming Bill provision was made for a Welsh Committee. I did not hear at that time the people from Cornwall or from Yorkshire asking that there should be separate committees for those very beautiful counties. Why produce this argument now?
The principle has been laid down in this House. There is not only a committee under the Hill Farming and Forestry Acts, but there is also a Land Commission. Furthermore, in Wales we have a joint education committee of our own. Wales is a nation; not merely a part of the United Kingdom. It has its own party, and we as individuals have put our names to this new Clause as Members of the Welsh Parliamentary Party. This is the first instance for many years when we brought our arguments to the Floor of the House of Commons, because the Minister has not met our wishes.
In the Schedule there are listed 28 fishing harbours in Wales. If there is special consideration for education and agriculture in Wales, the same argument can be applied here. Not one Welshman has been considered for the Authority, but we are very glad of the concession that when vacancies take place that point will be considered. I rise as an official of the Welsh Parliamentary Party—I have no official interest in the matter from the point of view of my division—to say that we are disappointed with the reply of the Minister.

Mr. William Elwyn Jones: I am voicing the very grave feelings of those who are supporting this new Clause when I say that we were disappointed with the reply of the Minister. I gather

that the Minister's chief objection to the new Clause is that there are no peculiarities in the fishing industry in Wales, and that the problems of fishing in Wales are precisely the same as those which face the industry in England. By the same reasoning there should be no separate Commission for Scotland or Northern Ireland. I did not hear any argument adduced by the Minister to show that there was any difference about the character or peculiarities of the fishing industry in Scotland.

Captain Duncan: Of course there is.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: The Minister did not produce any of the arguments. The reason is that the problem is the same in Scotland, Northern Ireland and England, and the reason why the Minister set up a separate Commission for Scotland and Northern Ireland is in order that their particular interests should be properly represented on a geographical basis and that those interests should receive proper attention. For my part I am very sorry that there has been complete silence on the Opposition benches on this subject.

Mr. Rankin: That is what we always get on these matters.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: They have always expressed their interest and belief in individual freedom and in national freedom. In this debate they have not expressed anxiety such as we have felt at the reply of the Minister. They have not exhibited any interest at all, and I leave the matter there for others to draw the necessary conclusion. I can only support my hon. Friends on this side of the House and say we are very disappointed at the reply of the Minister. For my part I find it very unconvincing.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause 1.—(CONSTITUTION AND GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF WHITE FISH AUTHORITY.)

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move in page 2, line 10, at the end, to insert:
The Ministers shall publish in such manner as they think fit any direction given by them under this subsection as soon as practicable after it is given, unless in their opinion it is against the national interest to do so.
I ought to mention that this Amendment should be taken together with that in page 16, line 12, to leave out subsection


(6). This Amendment has been put down largely at the request of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Dugdale), who moved an Amendment in Committee the words of which we could not accept. I undertook to look at it between then and the Report stage, and these two Amendments merely fulfil the promise I made in Committee.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: On behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, I wish to thank the Minister for these Amendments. We had a considerable discussion on this point in Committee, and the Committee finally felt that this type of wording would make for the better administration of the Bill. We are glad that the Government have seen fit to propose this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3.—(THE WHITE FISH INDUSTRY ADVISORY COUNCIL.)

6.15 p.m.

Sir T. Dugdale: I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, to leave out "appointed," and to insert "selected."
I think it would be convenient if we discussed together this Amendment and the next one, also in line 36, because they cover the same point. These two Amendments deal with Clause 3, which sets out the method by which the White Fish Industry Advisory Council is to be set up. On the Committee stage we had a long debate on this subject, and we withdrew our Amendment on the understanding that the Government would consider this matter between then and the Report stage. As the Government have not seen fit to put down an Amendment, it is our purpose, in moving these two Amendments, to enable them to explain the position to us.
It was quite clear during the debate in the Committee stage that there was no difference between the two sides of the Committee in principle, but only as to the form of words. The substance of the point is that members of the Advisory Council should be selected from panels of names submitted by representative organisations, and we understood that the Government were largely in agreement with us on that particular method of forming the Advisory Council. At this stage I will say no more in order that the Government can explain their atti

tude, having reviewed the position since the Committee last met.

Captain Duncan: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Grimond: As the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Dugdale) has said, most of the reasons for and against this Amendment were argued in Committee. I take it we have all considerable sympathy with the two aims which he has in mind, first, that there should be a more democratic foundation for this Council; and secondly, that it should be representative of the very important and valuable organisations which exist throughout the fishing industry.
On the other hand, there are strong arguments on the other side. There is a multitude of these organisations, and it could be argued that pressure from some of them has not always been entirely beneficial to the industry. Secondly, there are various independent people who might be extremely useful on this Council and who might not be put forward by any organisation. Furthermore, some smaller organisations exists with which it would be extremely difficult for the Minister to keep in touch. There is a danger that if the Amendment is accepted certain individuals or organisations might be excluded from consultation with the Minister. If I understand the Amendment aright, the Minister would be compelled to accept only the people who were put on the panel, and he would have no other course open to him. There is also the question of the consumers, and people who are not in any organisation.
I should like to ask the Minister whether it would be possible to make public the names of all the bodies to whom he refers, because a certain amount of democratic principle would then be satisfied, and we should know that the responsible bodies had an opportunity to put forward their views. If the Amendment is to be taken at its face value, it means that the Minister will not be able to consult organisations which are multitudinous in number. In that case, I could not support the Amendment.

Mr. Edward Evans: I hope that the Minister will resist the Amendment. We had a very full debate on this point on the Committee stage and I cannot agree with what was said by the


hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Dugdale), that we were then willing to accept the principle of the Amendment. There are so many flaws in the Amendment that it is very difficult for us to see what benefit there could be to the industry from the interpretations which could be placed upon it. The major difficulty is that a certain amount of force majeure could be brought to bear by big representative authorities, who would be bound to have seats upon the Advisory Council, in order to secure the selection of certain persons whom they wanted to press forward. They might simply submit one name, so as to give no choice, and that would not be in the best interests of the purposes for which the advisory committee has been set up.
The Amendment would restrict the opportunity for the Minister to go outside the big, recognised authorities and bring in people who have given most of their lives to the service of the fishing industry and are as knowledgeable as anybody. For those and other reasons, I hope that the Government will not accept the Amendment.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): I hope that the hon. Baronet and his Friends will not press this Amendment. We went over the arguments in the Standing Committee, since when the Government have tried to find a form of words which would enable us to meet the principle specifically in the Bill without tying the hands of the Government unduly. It has proved impossible, with all the good will in the world, to find a form of words which would not tie us down so completely that we should be open to all the difficulties which have been mentioned. It is only because of those difficulties that we are not accepting the Amendment. I give the firmest assurance that we will consult with all the organisations and that we will invite them to submit lists of names, and that it will normally be the intention of the Minister to select from the lists of names that are put in.
In regard to the point made in the previous debate by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Law) about the different interests, for example in the near and distant waters, we

are proposing to ask the British Trawler Federation to submit different sets of names for the different parts of the industry. Our great difficulty is that if we were tied down under the Bill we would lose all power of selection. Any interest which chose to put up just one name, or a few names, would be able to compel the selection of an individual or individuals, without the Minister having any power of choice. It is to avoid that happening that we are taking our present course. If there were any awkwardness, we retain power of selection. There is the additional point that in the case of the inshore fishermen it would not be true to say that there is any real, national representative body. We might in that case get the objection that we were appointing somebody who was unrepresentative.
In this matter we are following faithfully good Conservative precedent. In respect of the two Fisheries Acts of 1938, this principle was very firmly adhered to by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they put forward the very arguments which I have now repeated, with that hallowing sanctity. I therefore invite them to withdraw the Amendment.

Sir T. Dugdale: If I may speak again, with the permission of the House, I would just say that the Government have evidently given very careful consideration to the point since the Committee stage. It is important to have put on record the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary, and in view of that statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4.—(PARTICULAR POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE AUTHORITY.)

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 3, line 22, after "agents," to insert:
in any locality in which the Authority think it necessary so as to secure proper provision for the needs of the fishing industry.
It might be for the convenience of the House if we could discuss at the same time the next Amendment, in page 3, line 35.
Here again, thanks to the discussion which we had in Committee on the question of the Authority becoming salesmen or undertaking processing, we have put forward these Amendments. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Law) put down two Amendments. On one the


Government won because the Chairman voted in, our favour, and on the other we had a minority of one. We promised then that if the right kind of words could be provided we would give effect to the real desire of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice, and that is what we are now doing.
If one couples the words of the Amendment which I have moved with those of the Bill, one sees that the Authority cannot become salesmen except in any locality in which the Authority think it necessary, so as to secure proper provision for the needs of the industry. The same remark applies to the second Amendment, with regard to processing. I said in Committee that the processing equipment may exist but may not be in use or might not be used economically. Either situation could be detrimental to the fishermen. That is what we are trying to avoid. I hope that the Amendments will satisfy the hon. Baronet that we have fulfilled faithfully the promise that we made in Committee.

6.30 p.m.

Sir T. Dugdale: I do not suppose that my hon. Friends can be as enthusiastic about these Amendments as they were about the others. I understand that what happened in Committee on this point had an effect on the Government. By and large, we accept the way the Government have tried to meet the point we made during the Committee stage, and for that reason we gratefully accept these Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 35, leave out from second "in," to end of line 36, and insert:
any locality in which the Authority think it necessary so as to secure proper provision for the needs of the fishing industry."—[Mr. T. Williams.]

Clause 5.—(POWER TO MAKE REGULATIONS ABOUT HANDLING, ETC., OF WHITE FISH, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.)

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I beg to move, in page 4, line 23, after "Authority," to insert:
after consultation with such bodies, if any, as appear to them to be representative of the interests concerned.
It will probably be for the convenience of the House also to consider the two

following Amendments, in Clause 6, to the same effect.
These Amendments give effect to an undertaking given during the Committee stage when certain Amendments were put down by the Opposition. We have now found words to give effect to our promise. The Amendments provide for consultation in certain circumstances with representatives of the interests concerned; first, by the White Fish Industry before making regulations under Clause 5(1); second, by the authority before submitting schemes to the Ministers under Clause 6(1); and, third, by the Ministers before revoking schemes found to be unsatisfactory under Clause 6 (6). The Amendments should be readily acceptable to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6.—(SCHEMES FOR REORGANISATION, DEVELOPMENT OR REGULATION OF THE INDUSTRY.)

Amendments made: In page 6, line 8, leave out from "such," to "that," and insert:
bodies, if any, as appear to them to be representative of the interests concerned.
In line 36, after "consultation," insert:
with such bodies, if any, as appear to them to be representative of the interests concerned and."—[Mr. T. Fraser.]

Clause 15.—(FINANCES OF THE AUTHORITY AND EXPENSES OF THE ADVISORY COUNCIL.)

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I beg to move, in page 15, line 1, after "power," to insert:
after consultation with such bodies, if any, as appear to them to be representative of the interests concerned.
We have just provided that before the Authority can either make a regulation or introduce a scheme it must formally consult various interests in the industry. Another matter is involved. The body must raise money. If it is proper for the Authority to consult interests in the industry before making a scheme or regulations, it is equally proper for it to consult the industry before deciding upon the levies. Two kinds of levies may be made: one, a general levy, and the other a special levy, and both may be made upon the same man or group of men or locality or localities.
I consulted my fishermen constituents when the Bill was introduced and, per-


haps because they were Scotsmen, the thing in which they were most keenly interested was the levy. They asked how it was to be imposed and who would pay it and in what conditions it would be paid. That would be a natural reaction for even Englishmen and Welshmen and it was certainly a very proper reaction for Scotsmen. All fishermen will expect the Authority to consult the various branches of the industry before drawing up its scheme of levies.
The House will observe that special levies may be imposed upon such persons as the schemes authorise and that additional sums may be imposed upon those persons. Subsection (3) says:
Any levy imposed by the Authority under this section shall be payable by such persons engaged in the white fish industry, in such proportions and at such times as may be prescribed or,…as may be provided by a scheme…
As the levy is apparently to be linked up with the details of the scheme or the regulations, it would be completely illogical to say that the Authority must consult interests before drawing up a scheme or a regulation but must not consult them before deciding on the precise form of the levy. Before issuing a general or special levy, the Authority should be required to consult the industry. I have adopted words used by the right hon. Gentleman, in the three preceding Amendments. We ought to be logical and sensible about this, and, having applied the principle a few moments ago, we should apply it again now.

Captain Duncan: I beg to second the Amendment.
Although we have reached the Report stage of the Bill, we do not yet know exactly how the levy will be imposed. The Clause says that the levy should be:
…a sum not exceeding for any financial year one penny for every stone of white fish….
We do not know whether that will be a flat rate levy per stone of every kind of fish landed or whether it will be at a different rate for different kinds of fish—a higher rate on the more expensive fish and a lower rate on the cheaper fish. On the Committee stage the Minister of Agriculture said that we must leave this to the Authority. If that is so, it is surely only

fair to try to get the agreement of the interests concerned so that the levy scheme shall work satisfactorily. It is only reasonable that these words should be inserted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson Stewart), has pointed out that these words are almost identical with words just inserted by the Minister. I would emphasise the word "bodies" in the Amendment, for these need not necessarily be national bodies. The inshore fishing industry has not national but local bodies which represent the interests concerned. It is therefore necessary to have a wide interpretation in order to get the widest possible concurrence of the industry which must be obtained before the scheme can be satisfactorily settled. The inclusion of these words will contribute to the smooth working of the Bill.

Mr. E. Evans: Would not that suggestion defeat the very object the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in mind? He has just told us that the small inshore fisherman is not organised on a national basis. Was not the pressure during the Committee stage from the big sections of the industry—the big trawler owners at Hull and so on—in order that the smaller, higher quality fish would pay a differential which would operate against it? The argument just put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that he cannot get a national body to represent the smaller men, would be defeated by the difficulty of getting their opinions.

Captain Duncan: I have already explained that the word "bodies" is so wide as to include not only the big trawler owner but also the inshore, local interests, such as the Arbroath Fishermen's Association or the Firth of Forth Fishermen's Association.

Mr. T. Williams: The hon. Member for Fyfe, East (Mr. Henderson Stewart), said that we do not know even now what these levies will be, on whom they will fall, in what proportion, and so forth. Hon. Members were told during the Committee stage that the question of the levy would obviously have to be left to the Authority. We have already accepted three Amendments laying statutory obligations on the authority to consult the interests before they produce schemes or regulations, before they decide upon the levy, how it


shall be assessed, and so forth. Therefore consultation is safeguarded and there can be no levies until a regulation is produced on which the interests concerned have already been consulted. Now, however, because we have responded to the calls from the Opposition for consultation here, there and elsewhere, hon. Members come forward with another demand for consultation. It really is going too far and is quite unacceptable.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Why?

Mr. Williams: I will tell the hon. Member why. The Authority, not the industry generally, must take full responsibility for maintaining their own solvency. If the hon. Member has noted the effect of his own Amendment, he will find that even before the Authority could borrow money with the approval of the Minister and with the consent of the Treasury, to carry out their undertakings, they would have to consult the various interests. It would be a new departure in any legislation I have ever seen if an authority acting for the Government had to consult some other interests to determine whether or not they should borrow funds. That is an extraordinary suggestion and is not one of which I could approve.
Once the programme of the Authority has been settled, after proper consultation with the industry on policy—and thus on its financial implications—the authority must be left to take the necessary measures to finance the programmes they have undertaken. Surely in financial matters the Authority will be answerable to Ministers and also to Parliament in their annual reports. The means of control are the audit provided for in Clause 16 and the control which Ministers and Parliament will exercise over the funds of the Authority, whether the moneys are provided by Parliament or from some other source.
It was quite proper for hon. Members to seek statutory obligations for consultation on policy; it is quite another thing to compel the Authority to consult all the interests down to the smallest inshore fishery port, before they can proceed to borrow, to provide themselves with a levy to finance their operations, and to do all the things required by the two hon. Members who have moved and seconded this Amendment. I hope, however, now

that they see the full implications of what it would mean, they will not be disposed to press the Amendment further.

Amendment negatived.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Duthie: I beg to move, in-page 15, line 6, after "Britain," to insert:
including fish imported from foreign sources.
This Amendment refers to fish that comes in a boxed state direct to central markets without passing through the quayside market. There is no specific mention in the Bill of such fish, and we feel that because of the importance of this section of the trade, and the effect that this fish can have on the whole of the activities of the Authority, it should be especially mentioned as subject to the levy. In the Second Reading debate, I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether this fish was the subject of a levy. The reply of the right hon. Gentleman was that his guess was that it would apply, but we would have to leave that to the Authority. We feel that it should be incumbent upon the Authority, through the agency of this Measure, that the levy should apply equally to boxed imported fish as to other fish landed at the quayside.

Mr. D. Marshall: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. G. Brown: I hope the hon. Gentleman will feel, after my explanation, that there is no need to press his Amendment. There is a technical objection to it in that this is the wrong place to achieve his purpose. Also it is unnecessary to import those words here to have the desired effect. The phrase "white fish landed in Great Britain" clearly includes in its meaning foreign-caught fish landed in Great Britain. It could not possibly be interpreted in any other way, and the inclusion of the words "including fish imported from foreign sources" would throw doubt on the same phrase anywhere else in the Bill that did not include those additional words.

Mr. Duthie: The hon. Gentleman will realise that this boxed fish does not come through the quayside ports.

Mr. Brown: But if we can get it clear first of all that it applies to all white


fish landed in Great Britain, the question arises whether the arrangements made to collect the levy will catch fish which does not come through the quayside ports. In Clause 19, it is stated:
a person shall be deemed to engage in the white fish industry if he carries on the business of operating fishing vessels for the catching or landing of white fish, or if he carries on in Great Britain the business of selling white fish by wholesale or by retail or of processing white fish…
So that an importer, a wholesaler, or even a retailer, in the appropriate circumstances can be made the person to pay the levy. Therefore, all white fish landed in Britain, whether it comes in to the quayside ports or is boxed at another point in the ladder of sale, will obviously get caught under Clause 19 according to the point at which it is convenient and appropriate to catch it. Therefore, since the Amendment would add nothing, but would throw doubt on the phrase elsewhere, I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to withdraw his Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: The Parliamentary Secretary emphasised several times the words "Great Britain." I think and hope that the Parliament of Northern Ireland will agree to the Bill and will wish to come in with a member from Northern Ireland on the Scottish Committee. If and when Northern Ireland comes in, will the words "Great Britain" mean the United Kingdom?

Mr. G. Brown: That has nothing to do with the Amendment. The answer to that has already been given, and if the hon. and gallant Member refers to Clause 20, he will see that the necessary provision is made.

Mr. Duthie: In view of the hon. Gentleman's explanation, which will be of great value to the trade as a whole, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16.—(ACCOUNTS AND REPORTS OF THE AUTHORITY.)

Amendment made: In page 16, line 12, leave out subsection (6).—[Mr. T. Fraser.]

Clause 18.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS ABOUT OFFENCES.)

Mr. Erroll: I beg to move, in page 18, line 9, to leave out subsection (6), and to insert:
(6) Where an offence under the last foregoing section or any regulation made under this Act which has been committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of or to be attributable to any negligence on the part of any director, manager or secretary or other officer of the body corporate he as well as the body corporate shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Throughout the Bill there are various penalties for contravening the provisions of the Bill. These penalties comprise both fines and imprisonment. The existing subsection (6) has a harsh way of dealing with a particular class of persons who may be caught committing an offence under the Bill. Where a single individual is convicted, he may either be fined or be imprisoned, but a difficulty arises in the case of a body corporate. It is a straightforward matter to fine a body corporate, but it is not possible to imprison them. The subsection has, I imagine, been introduced with the intention of securing the imprisonment of an individual in the body corporate who may be deemed to be responsible for the commission of the offence.
What is particularly bad about the subsection in its unamended form is that it presumes that all the officers in the body corporate are guilty unless each of them can individually and separately prove his innocence. This is plainly a reversal of the tradition of British justice, and is particularly important since prison sentences are involved. I have, naturally, no desire whatever to shield the guilty, as will be seen clearly from the Amendment. Nevertheless, it is plain that by requiring a defendant to prove a negative the burden of proof may well become too heavy and may result in the conviction, not only of the guilty, but also of the innocent.
It would be singularly difficult in some cases to establish within the very wide phrases of the Clause one's complete innocence if it was decided by the Crown to take proceedings. The existing subsection (6) specifies that any member of a body corporate shall be deemed guilty of the offence unless he proves not only


that the offence was committed without his consent or connivance 
but also that he had
exercised all such diligence to prevent the commission of the offence as he ought to have exercised having regard to the nature of his functions….
He may well have exercised such diligence, but it may be extremely difficult for him to prove it, especially in a small company where many of the normal day-to-day transactions are concluded by word of mouth or over the telephone and where no elaborate written records or filed copies of inter-office memos are kept.
The present subsection has appeared in other Acts and we are not seeing it by any means for the first time. It has always been argued by the Government that there are precedents for this presumption of guilt and that, because of the precedents, the bad practice should be allowed to continue. Indeed, it would be possible to produce—I think, in an earlier debate such a list was produced—a list of all the Acts containing this thoroughly undesirable section. I could equally well produce a similar list of Acts without such an undesirable provision, and we could scarcely continue the argument on the basis of two rival lists.
The real point at issue is whether it is desirable to reverse an important British tradition for the sake of the objects of the Bill. I am well aware that there are occasional Acts—and they may have been quoted in previous lists—where the offences are so gravely against the public interest that a reversal of the onus of proof is justified, but surely this is not such a Bill. Here the offences are of a relatively mild nature. They constitute such matters as failure to make returns or to consign fish to where it ought to go—admittedly, sins of omission and therefore difficult matters, perhaps, for the prosecution to prove, but not matters of such great importance that the Government should ask the House of Commons to agree to a Clause which reverses a traditional principle of British justice.
I wish to be constructive, and I have made it possible in the Amendment that, should the Government wish to proceed against an individual as well as against the body corporate, they can do so, but that they can proceed only against the individual who is likely to be guilty of

the offence. They cannot sweep everybody into the net and say, "You are all guilty until you can prove your innocence."
As matters of precedent are likely to be raised on this issue, I point out that I am myself using a Clause which has ample precedents. I have taken as my Amendment the exact wording in two of the Government's post-war Acts—for example, the National Insurance Act, 1946—so that if this wording was right for two of the Government's own Acts, promoted by themselves in order to provide the kind of cover which they think is required in this matter, surely it is appropriate to this Bill.
I hope, therefore, that the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment, particularly in view of the amicable atmosphere which has prevailed throughout our discussions on the Report stage. However, it may not be possible for the Government to go the whole way today, as the Amendment has been on the Order Paper for only a few days, and it may be that the matter will be raised again in another place. An assurance of that character would make it possible for us to continue in the same amicable atmosphere which has so far surrounded these proceedings.

Commander Noble: I beg to second the Amendment.
In doing so, I may perhaps appear to trespass into this debate, even though I have a riverside constituency.

Mr. Key: No fish.

Commander Noble: I have studied what was said in the Standing Committee and I was a little surprised at the Government's attitude over subsection (6). I thought that my hon. Friends put their case most clearly, and I was sorry that the Government would not at that time agree to reconsider the matter. Tonight, my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) has put forward a very reasonable alternative and has moved it clearly and concisely. I do hope that on this occasion, even if the Government cannot give an answer tonight, they will at least agree to reconsider it, perhaps before this Bill goes to another place, but I very much hope they will agree to it tonight.

7.0 p.m.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Douglas Johnston): The Amendment has been proposed in a most reasonable way but I think it is founded on a false hypothesis. It is founded on the hypothesis that the person against whom a charge is made is required to prove his innocence, there being no evidence then that he is in any way implicated in the offence with which he is charged. But that is not the case. Before a director or any servant of the company can be charged it must be proved, first, that the company committed the offence and, second, that the person charged is a director or secretary or other official of the company.
It is of course true that by a fiction of our law a company has a persona quite distinct from that of its members or officers but a company can only act through its directors and secretary and other officers. There is no difficulty in prosecuting the company and directors and other officers when the act or offence is an act of commission because one can ascertain who did the act. As the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) said, the difficulty arises where the act complained of is an act of omission. There it is possible to ascertain that the company has failed to do something it ought to have done but not possible for the Crown or prosecutor to ascertain what particular officer of the company should have done the act.
I will give an example. Great emphasis was placed throughout the debate by all sides on the necessity for the Authority to give directions from time to time on the timing of landings. Supposing the Authority gives directions to a company which owns a trawler that a landing has to be at a particular time and suppose that direction is not obeyed and the trawler enters the harbour to discharge its cargo. One can quite easily prosecute the company, but it is impossible for the Crown to ascertain which director or which person should have given the order to the trawler to delay its landing. Accordingly, what we have done here is to adopt a Clause for which there is ample precedent. It has been found for many years that in prosecuting companies it is necessary to have such a Clause as this. The suggested subsection has never been found satisfactory.
In the majority of cases concerned with companies the only persons who have a real knowledge of who is guilty of the act of omission or commission are the directors and secretary of the company. The Crown does not know them and the prosecutor does not know them. I submit that, it having been proved that the company has committed the offence, it is proper that the directors and other officers should show that they themselves were not implicated in the offence. For these reasons I cannot accept the Amendment for the deletion of this subsection or the alternative subsection proposed.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) had never proved satisfactory. That is rather news, is it not? Has this method been tried?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The Solicitor-General for Scotland indicated assent.

Mr. Stewart: In what cases, and for what reason has it failed to be satisfactory? I think we ought to know. The second thing the hon. and learned Gentleman said which surprised me was that, according to him, the only persons concerned here are directors. If there were only two or three directors involved, the problem would be fairly simple, but that is not what the Clause says. The Clause says:
Where a body corporate is guilty of an offence against this Part of this Act, every person who at the time of the commission of the offence was a director, general manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or was purporting to act in any such capacity.
It may be one of a whole string of people. Besides the directors it might include the private secretary, a young girl acting for the time being for the secretary. It might include a clerk, or typist. We are concerned with what the Clause says and when the courts administer the Act they will look at exactly what the Clause says. It is because the Clause says that a whole lot of people are involved—

Mr. E. Evans: Do not be stupid, do not exaggerate.

Mr. Stewart: I am not being stupid, nor am I exaggerating.

Mr. Evans: Read it.

Mr. Stewart: I will read it again:
Where a body corporate is guilty of an offence against this part of this Act, every person"—
I repeat, "every person",
who at the time of the commission of the offence was a director, general manager, secretary or other similar officer"—
Let us pause there. Who is a "similar officer"?

Mr. E. Evans: One of their men.

Mr. Stewart: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us that the "other similar officer" can only be a director, or only a secretary, or general manager? He can be anyone acting in any way like that—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If hon. Members opposite regard it as a limited Clause, let them look at the next few words. It includes those people I have mentioned and anyone else acting "in any such capacity."
An hon. Friend who spoke on this matter earlier raised the case of one of his local fishermen's co-operative societies. Precisely the same kind of society exists in one of the East Fife ports. The basis of such a society is a committee with a secretary and his clerk and a couple of men in the office and, perhaps, a couple of men outside as salesmen. They are all in the business. If that company commits an act of omission is everyone on the committee acting on behalf of other people automatically to be regarded as guilty? That is not British justice at all.
I submit that whatever may be the rights and wrongs of the law in the case of the fishing industry, where conditions are not really normal and we have a great many tiny organisations of this kind, this provision should be looked at again. Like my hon. Friend, I think it unnecessary to press for a decision tonight, but because I feel that I speak with some knowledge of the men I represent, I do ask that the Government will look again at this matter. These men feel very deeply concerned about this, and, as one of those who represent them, I feel that we cannot pass over the matter in this way.

Sir T. Dugdale: I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) and by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble). We had an important contribution from

the learned Solicitor-General for Scotland which was answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson Stewart).
We seem to be leaving the sea for the moment, and white fish in particular, and to be getting into the realm of law. I do not feel at all qualified to stand at this Box and give a legal opinion. All I ask the Government to do is consult again with their legal advisers before this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. We shall consult with those who advise us in matters of law before this Measure goes to another place and then if necessary our friends in another place will be able to raise the point and we shall hear the final view of the Government on this matter. I appeal to the Minister of Agriculture to meet us in that way.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: With the leave of the House, may I say that the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Dugdale), has put forward, with his usual charm, a most conciliatory plea. I feel that this Bill has gone so well that I should be lacking in courtesy if I did not say that we shall agree to look at it again. But I would say, also, that at the moment my mind is inclined against accepting the alternative offered by the Amendment.

Mr. Erroll: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 19.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Mr. Richard Law: I beg to move, in page 19, line 20, at the end, to insert:
but excluding the refinement or processing of fish liver and its derivatives.
The purpose of this Amendment is to exclude the cod liver oil industry from the purview of the Bill. I moved a similar Amendment on the Committee stage which I withdrew, not because the purpose of the Amendment was improper—indeed the Minister did not try to persuade the Committee that the purpose was improper—but simply because, as he pointed out, the Amendment I then moved would not have had the effect of excluding the cod liver oil industry from the Bill.
I can put the arguments for this Amendment very briefly. I hope the


Minister will be able to consider them sympathetically and to accept the Amendment. In the first place, the cod liver oil industry is quite distinct from the fishing industry. It does use the cod liver as a raw material, but once that stage is passed the processing and exporting of the cod liver oil—it is a world-wide industry—is entirely distinct from the sea fish industry.
It is the purpose of the Bill, as we understand it, to give help to an industry which without it, would, in the general opinion of the House, be in very sore straits. The cod liver oil industry is not in very sore straits, and does not need any help which this Bill might give it. It is a very flourishing industry and of great advantage to the country, particularly from the point of view of its export negotiations. I further suggest to the Minister that the Authority will have its hands full enough in dealing with the fishing industry proper, without venturing into the realm of an industry which has nothing in common with the fishing industry other than deriving its raw material from the livers of cod and other fish.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have been happy with the previous Amendment which I moved in Clause 4, page 3, line 35.
As most of us know, there is at Hull a magnificent cod liver oil factory. I have been there myself; I have tasted their product and I have seen many of the "bonny babies" who work in the factory. The Authority certainly would be riding for a very heavy fall if they attempted in any way to establish themselves in competition with that magnificent factory. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that under Clause 4 the Authority have power to take or secure shares in certain vessels; and they have power in the remote case either to become salesmen or operate processing plants if it is done, in the words of my previous Amendment:
for the needs of the fishing industry.
Only in such cases can they operate. It would therefore seem to me that the existing cod liver oil factory at Hull need have no worry about Clause 4 or the power of the Authority, for by no conceivable circumstances could the

Authority become hostile competitors to that cod liver oil factory. If the Authority were to operate at all under their powers under Clause 4, then fish meal is perhaps the most obvious case. If they did happen for a period, probably a temporary period, to own vessels or partially to own vessels, until proper arrangements could be made, they at least ought to retain that power until other arrangements could be made for running the vessels and for doing what was done before the hypothetical company we are considering went into liquidation.
It would seem to me, however, that such a case would be so rare, and the unwisdom of operating in a place like Hull in opposition to that particular factory would be so great, that it would remove any fear, doubts or apprehensions which anyone associated with that factory might have. I consider there is no necessity for this particular Amendment so long as the powers in Clause 4 remain, and I hope that, in the light of the previous Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman will realise there is no danger to the cod liver oil factory or the fish meal factories or to any factories dealing in fish derivatives. I hope, therefore, that he will withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 21.—(FISHERY HARBOURS.)

Amendment made: In page 20, line 37, leave out "exempts," and insert "excepts."—[Mr. G. Brown.]

Mr. G. Brown: I beg to move, in page 21, line 15, at the end, to insert:
(5) Where there is in a harbour a pleasure pier which is not used or adapted for use as a landing place for goods or passengers, and is under the jurisdiction of undertakers other than the harbour authority, nothing in section two of the said Act of 1915 or in subsection (1) of this section shall affect the operation of any Act or order in relation to those undertakers or to their undertaking or works.
This is a very small Amendment. It so happens that in the Bill as drafted there are certain small pleasure piers in fishery harbours without any fishery functions which would come under the administrative authority of my right hon. Friend. It would be better that they should remain under the control of the Ministry of Transport, and this Amendment would ensure that.

Amendment agreed to.

Third Schedule.—(AUTHORITY'S REGULATIONS AND SCHEMES (PRELIMINARY PROCEDURE).)

Amendment made: In page 28, line 14, leave out "it thinks," and insert "they think."—[Mr. G. Brown.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. G. Brown.]

7.20 p.m.

Mr. D. Marshall: Before this Bill receives its Third Reading, I wish to make one or two observations, as I was not fortunate enough to catch your eye during the Second Reading debate, Mr. Speaker. I shall be extremely brief. I feel that we should all be completely and absolutely aware of the point that however many Bills we pass in this House, and however good we may think this Bill is, what has in fact happened is that we have given powers to an Authority, and it is that Authority which will have to make the Bill into a practical instrument to help the fishing industry.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) spoke of the greatness of this Bill and of how exceptional it was to find a Bill connected with the sea fish industry being dealt with in this House. Apart from the number of Acts we have had during the last five years, I would draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that it was quite a usual circumstance for such Measures to be brought forward many hundreds of years ago. One can go back to the days of Queen Elizabeth for an example, when an Act was passed in this House making it necessary to export clapboard for casks in exchange for casks imported in order that we should have sufficient casks to barrel our fish, such as pilchards or other forms of fish, for export from this country.
The practical point I wish to make is that although the Authority will no doubt do everything in its power to make the fishing industry as healthy as possible, we must not expect it, in view of the great difficulties that confront the industry and which have existed for years, to solve all those problems overnight. Therefore, I sincerely trust that both the fishing industry and Members of this House will realise that the Authority has an extremely difficult job before it which is of great national interest. I feel that there is no

more fitting moment than the present for this Bill to go through this House. We are all conscious of the great struggle that lies before us, and I feel it to be of supreme importance that we should realise that the fishing industry is part and parcel of the national defence and security of our land.
From time to time during the Committee stage of the Bill remarks have been made, which I do not challenge, about the percentage of the catch represented by the landings of the inshore fishing side of the industry. I do not feel that we should always approach that aspect as a matter of a percentage. The value to defence of the inshore fishing industry and the national interest which it serves are far greater than the actual percentage of fish landed. It is for that reason that from time to time various Acts have been passed because it has been recognised in this House and elsewhere in the country that the inshore fishing industry is of vital importance. I feel that the Minister will concur with regard to this point.
In relation to that point, we questioned the Minister during the passage of this Bill through the House as to whether there was sufficient power for the Authority not only to apply its mind to the question of what might be termed white fish in the larger sense in relation to the inshore fishing industry but whether power was equally provided in respect of shell fish. The Minister confirmed that the Authority had that power. I sincerely trust that the Authority will recognise that the shell fish industry is having an extremely difficult time. That is one of the points to which the Authority should apply its mind at once.
Another point which I hope the Authority will bear very much in mind, with respect to the power given to it in this Bill, is in regard to the question of defence. The question of stockpiling is involved. The harvest of the sea should play an extremely important part. Let the Authority see whether or not the question of stockpiling can be considered in relation to the sea fish industry of the country. Advantage could be taken of the industry again and again by storing some of its products away as part of our security and defence. I am not only thinking of one type of fish, but, in passing, nothing could be better in terms


of nutriment and proteins than the product of the pilchard industry of Cornwall. I do not overlook herring. My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby) has always spoken with feeling about that great dish, and the herring also should serve as part of our security and stockpile.
The whole House wishes the fishing industry well. Our discussions upon it have been rather pleasant from the start of the Second Reading. I sincerely trust that the Authority will have good fortune, that it will work as hard as it possibly can, and in spite of dealing with the great difficulties that confronts it, will do its best to see to it that by practical methods the great fishing industry of the United Kingdom shall flourish.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. Osborne: I suppose that during the earlier part of our discussions on this Bill I was the most sceptical Member of the House about its provisions. I now wish to say one or two things about the future of this Authority. It has a very difficult task indeed. Its purpose is two-fold, as the Minister has told us. We should be quite clear in our minds about how difficult that two-fold task is. First, it has so to regulate the industry that there will be an ample supply of good white fish at prices which the consumer can afford to pay. One of its objects is to protect the interests of the consumer, to see that the fish is of good quality, in plentiful supply, and if possible at a reduced price. That is a very important factor. I wish, for the sake of the housewives of this country, that the Authority may be amply successful.
The second objective of the Authority is set out in the Bill—to protect the interests of all concerned in the industry. I think that by that is meant that cheap fish shall not be available to the public at the expense of the fishermen or those otherwise engaged in the industry. Hon. Members opposite often say to us, I think with great justice, that we had cheap and ample coal in pre-war days at the price of the sweat and blood of the miner. That is a perfectly sound point to make. The same consideration now applies to the fisherman. When the Authority is trying to ensure that fish is produced for the housewife at a cheap price, the interests of the men engaged in the Indus

try— all grades and sections—will have to be safeguarded; they must not be sacrificed. The Authority will have a very difficult task in reconciling those two opposing aims.
Last Friday I met about 40 members of the Skippers' Guild in Grimsby. They requested me to raise three points on Third Reading, which I should like the Minister to answer if he can do so. They asked me to raise a matter in connection with Clause 5, where it is stated that the Authority will regulate the quality and quantity of all fish landed. That will, of course, include the fish landed from abroad. The men to whom I was speaking on Friday said, as the Minister well knows, that the key to the whole position lies in the quantity and quality of foreign fish landed. The Minister will recall that during the Second Reading I asked if the Authority could restrict to a quota the amount of foreign-caught fish landed in this country. The answer was that it depended upon negotiations with O.E.E.C. Under Clause 5, will this Authority have power to go direct to O.E.E.C., or will it have to go to the Minister and ask him to make the approach for it? The skippers feel very strongly that unless this question is faced, there is not much hope of this Authority doing the work which is being set before it.
The second question I was asked to put to the Minister also arises from Clause 5. Under that Clause the Authority can control landings at its absolute discretion. The skippers asked me to inquire whether the Authority can impose upon foreign fishing vessels which land fish here, with its permission, the same regulations for catching that fish as it imposes upon British trawlers. This is a matter of great importance. The skippers showed me on Friday the two-and-a-half-inch mesh which they have to use on British trawlers in the North Sea. Against that, foreigners use only a one-inch mesh. That is not only destroying the breeding grounds in the North Sea, but is putting the British trawler at a great disadvantage. The skippers say that it is most unfair. They want to know whether, under Clause 5, the Authority can insist that the foreign trawler which lands fish here, with its permission, shall be compelled to use the same mesh as that which must be used by the British trawler.
The last question I was asked to put was about Clause 1 (1). There it says that the Authority shall have the power of regulating the white fish industry. Does that mean that the Authority will have power to make protests on behalf of the British fishing industry where foreign Powers restrict the fishing grounds of British trawlers? On 5th October of this year there will come into operation a new law affecting fishing grounds north of Iceland. That will take from the British trawlers something like 2,600 square miles of the best fishing grounds in the northern waters. I was told on Friday that that would put out of business many of our men, if it was allowed to go through by default. I was also asked—

Mr. T. Williams: Before we proceed further with the various questions which the hon. Member is raising, I should like to point out that the last one is not connected with this Bill. Therefore, if I attempted to venture any reply, I should be out of order. I hope that the hon. Member will not raise points which are outside the Bill.

Mr. Osborne: I was merely asking the Minister whether, as the Authority has power to regulate this industry, it will have the power to protect the rights of this country under international law. Surely that will be the duty of the Authority. I think that it is reasonable. It is one of the functions which the skippers are expecting the Authority to carry out. It is one of the protections which they hope to receive. My final point is that the skippers feel that if that restriction on the northern fishing grounds by Iceland is allowed to go by default, then both the southern and the western shores may be cut off from them, and many of the best fishing grounds now open to the trawler men of Hull and Grimsby will be closed.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not want to put him off, but really he is straying many many miles beyond the confines of this Bill. I certainly could not attempt to venture any reply upon what may or may not happen as a result of action taken by the Government of Iceland or any other Government. I can only reply to any questions concerning what is embodied in the Bill, and not to questions about these problems which may or may not mature.

Mr. Osborne: I will not pursue that matter further. In the powers we are granting to the Authority, will there be one enabling them to pursue the matters I am now putting before the Minister?

Mr. Williams: Mr. Williams indicated dissent.

Mr. Osborne: Then I have nothing more to say.

7.36 p.m.

Commander Pursey: Unfortunately, I was not able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, on Second Reading, but I have no intention of trying to make a Second Reading speech on the Third Reading of this Bill. As one who has been connected with this industry for 50 years, I want to place on record that it has been left to a Labour Government to produce for the first time a satisfactory scheme for dealing with our fishing industry. In spite of the fact that the Opposition party were in power for year after year, they were never willing to deal with this industry in a proper manner, nor were they capable of doing so. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for one of the Scottish divisions wants to quack, I recommend to him the advice offered from his side of the House in a previous debate, that he should go out into St. James's Park and "quack, quack" to the ducks.
During the Second Reading debate we had a flamboyant speech from one Member of the Opposition, who shall be nameless, in which he said that unless we made drastic alterations to this Bill they could not agree to it. Where has been the drastic opposition? Where has been the drastic alteration? Is it not the fact that, throughout all the stages of this Bill, there has been no really substantial criticism of the Measure as a whole and very little of it in detail?
Therefore, from the first, it has been a perfectly good first-class Bill. No one, except the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), has been sceptical about it to any extent. I should like him to take it from me that from the first, I, and other hon. Members on this side of the House, have never had an anxious moment. We knew that this was one of the best Bills that has been produced in this House to deal with an important industry, not only from the point of view of the industry, but also from the point of view of the consumer and the housewife.
I now come to the question of the Authority. One of the points I raised in Committee which I want to register again tonight, is that I hope that the Authority will ensure that they receive copies of all signals which pass between owners and skippers about their instructions. In the past we have had cases of trawlers being delayed, not for the sake of getting more fish, not for the advantage of the housewife, but simply in order to create scarcity and to keep up an artificially high price to the detriment of the consumer.
Then comes the question of the relationship of the various parts of the industry. This will be the first time that the various parts of the industry will have been related and working as a whole. There is no question at all that this is a very real effort on behalf of the present Government to tackle one of the most difficult industries of the country not only in the interests of the industry itself but also in the interests of the consumer. Representing one of the divisions of Hull, which is the largest fishing port in the country and has the largest trawler fleet in the world, I most heartily welcome and support this Bill on behalf of everybody concerned, which means everybody in the country.

Mr. G. R. Howard: I had not intended to intervene, even for a short time, in this debate today until I received a very urgent and tragic letter from the secretary of one of the branches of the West Cornwall Fisherman's Council. I want to ask the Minister this question: Can he tell us how soon the White Fish Authority will be in active operation? That question is particularly urgent in the case of these shell fishermen, who have been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall), because of the fact that they do not receive the subsidy which is at present available to other fishermen, and also because the costs of road and rail transport are very high, owing to the distance, in many cases, of the smaller harbours from rail head.
I ask the Minister for an assurance which I can take back to these men, some of whom I saw during the Easter Recess, that their case will be considered very quickly. Otherwise I fear that the consequences will be as forecast in this

letter which I have received, and from which I would quote the following extract:
Finally, I would remind you of the urgency of this matter. I think at our meeting it was shown to be quite a desperate position as far as Coverack fishermen are concerned. There is little doubt that many other villages must be in the same plight, if not worse, and I would say that as each month passes, it takes with it yet another ruined fisherman. Time is a vital factor.
It is for those reasons that I have intervened in the debate to ask the Minister if he can give some assurance that the case of these men will be considered as one of great urgency.

7.42 p.m.

Squadron Leader Kinghorn: Like all other hon. Members who are interested in the fishing industry, I regard this Bill as a great step forward, and I know that our constituents will welcome the Third Reading just as much as we do. It is true that, as has been said, this is probably the most difficult industry to organise on the lines on which we are now trying to work, and I realise that the White Fish Authority will have an extremely difficult job to do.
Much was said during the Committee stage on this point. I have a great deal of sympathy with the Amendment which was moved by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll), and I hope that some satisfactory arrangement will be made in another place, when the promise of the Government for reconsideration will be fulfilled. As an ordinary member of the public and as a person interested in the welfare of the fishing industry, I also hope that the Advisory Council will become a really efficient part of the new set-up of this industry.
I do not think that hon. Members perhaps realise sufficiently how important it has been to include in Clause 19 the words in brackets in the last line, which state:
(including the business of a fish fryer.)
In the north of England, the fish frying business has played a very important part in the economic life of our people, and sometimes has taken 60 per cent. of the total catch. Although we have often seen this industry as the subject of music-hall jokes, the fact is that it has been a very important part of the economic


set-up, especially in the north of England, and I suppose in other parts of the country, in that women bringing up families have been saved a great deal of labour in preparing meals, especially at mid-day. I therefore hope that the new organisation will take a lively interest in this important industry and give guidance where it is needed, so that the best possible value may be obtained from the fried fish, which is sold in such vast quantities.
In addition, I would also like to see on the Advisory Council somebody like, say, the owner of a very famous restaurant in London, whose name I will not mention but to whose restaurant one goes if one wants a good fish meal.

Mr. Boothby: Mme. Prunier.

Squadron Leader Kinghorn: I did not want to give the name, because I hold the lady in high esteem, I believe that someone of that calibre, who can cook fish to the same standard as it is cooked in France, is the sort of person who might be considered as one of the members of the Advisory Council. We wish to raise higher and higher the standard of the cooking of fish in this country, which leaves much to be desired when compared with that of France or other countries, where so many wonderful dishes can be prepared from the local products of the fishing industry.
My next point is this. I have always been certain that our fishing industry, both white fishing and herring fishing, could form a good basis for an export trade if the trade were properly handled. Yesterday, along with other hon. Members from both sides of the House, I returned from a visit to the Gold Coast. While we were there last week, we went to the local market to see what sort of food the ordinary people of the Gold Coast were getting. I was surprised to find that, while there was a certain amount of fish, the price was very high, so that very little fish indeed was eaten by the people. What they lack is protein value in their food, and there is a market for exporting fish there, if it can be done at a reasonable price.
We welcome this Bill, and we assure the White Fish Authority now set up that we shall support it wherever we can in the future, and that those hon. Members

who come from the fishing ports in this country will follow its activities keenly and will no doubt criticise it. We hope that we shall not have the need to criticise it too much, but, on the contrary, we look forward to the Authority making a success of its job and so improving the lives of our constituents.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: I support the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth (Squadron Leader Kinghorn) concerning Mme. Prunier. I think that is a very good idea, and I support it. I am very glad to have been the instrument of eliciting the lady's name, because I think it is a very good name. I think the people of this country ought to know more about how to cook fish. I would also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) for the few kind words he said about herrings. I am always grateful for any reference to the most delectable of all fish.

Commander Pursey: This Bill has nothing to do with herrings.

Mr. Boothby: No, but my hon. Friend said something nice about herrings, and there is no reason why I should not thank him for it.

Commander Pursey: The hon. Member is only harrying.

Mr. Boothby: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will soon find out that there is a great deal of difference between harrying and herring.
I welcome this Bill, and I am pleased to see that the Secretary of State for Scotland is present, because the reason why I think this Bill is so good is that it does give the new Authority adequate power. There is another board which I think has not got adequate power, and, although I would be out of order in discussing it, I think the right hon. Gentleman knows what I mean. The late Mr. Lloyd George had a habit, sometimes, of arriving at simple but blinding truths.

Commander Pursey: Which Lloyd George?

Mr. Boothby: The late David Lloyd George, once Prime Minister of this country. He once said to me that it is no good taking two leaps to get over an abyss, that one was obliged to come clean


and either had to do it in one or not at all. This Bill has jumped the abyss. We have had some nibbles at other industries in which I am interested, but I like this Bill because it has given this Authority adequate powers to do a very difficult job. I really think this Bill inaugurates a new era in the white fishing industry of this country and I am delighted that it should be so.
I said it gave adequate powers to the Authority. I do not think it gave quite all the powers that my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) suggested. If it did give it all those powers the Authority would need to have its headquarters at Strasbourg, but I do not think we have any right to complain that it has not given these foreign powers. At the same time the Authority has great and extensive powers and I do not think anybody on any side of the House will have any doubt that they will not be exercised wisely and well. This is a very hazardous industry. I think this Bill will take some of the hazard out of it, and therefore it should be very much welcomed on that account. I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon introducing it and seeing it pass through successfully.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Edward Evans: In saying farewell to this Bill which has had such a pleasant passage right through all its stages, we on this side of the House who are in our fisheries group feel very proud of the result of the agitation in which we have taken part for many years past, and in which hon. Members opposite co-operated, to set up the body to which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby) referred. We are glad to see the hon. Member here on the Third Reading—we missed him so badly on Second Reading.

Mr. Boothby: I was here on Second Reading, and listened to every one of the very numerous and rather boring speeches hon. Members made.

Mr. Evans: We want to give this Bill a good send-off when it goes to another place. There is still a feeling of great anxiety in the country about the fishing industry. There is no question at all that there is in the minds of the consumers and housewives a feeling that fish is too dear. The costs of the fishing industry

have been mounting steadily. I am glad the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire hoped the hazards of the industry would be lessened, because on the Committee stage he was glorying in the fact that the industry was a gamble, and he did not want to take the gamble out of it. We hope that the gamble in the fishing industry as regards rewards will be reduced as a result of the setting up of the White Fish Authority.
I should like to stress strongly the necessity of going into the question of marketing fish and the related questions of storage and disposal of gluts, and the allocation of fish to fish fryers and to the factories. That lies at the core of an adequate cheap supply to the housewife. It is essential that the rewards of the industry should go to the right people, to the fishermen who run the risks and brave the dangers of the sea. It is also essential that those who eat the fish should get it in good quality, in good variety and at a reasonable price.
I feel we cannot expect spectacular changes too soon. It is gratifying to know that the Authority have taken steps to acquaint themselves not only with the technical aspects of the industry but with those people who actually work the industry. We cannot expect dramatic results, but I am sure that in due course we shall see a gradual and real improvement both in the status of the fishermen and in the adequacy and cheapness of supplies to the housewife. I wish the Authority every success and I congratulate the Minister upon presenting the Bill. Those of us who were members of the committee of which I had the honour to be chairman and all of us on this side of the House, take a great deal of pride in the fact that this Bill has come from this Government.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. W. R. A. Hudson: During the early stages of the passage of this Bill, I took a point of view somewhat different from that of the majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House and for that reason I think that my view has been a little unpopular. But at this stage I want to join with hon. Members on both sides who have expressed good wishes for the future operations of the Authority.
The distant water section of the industry have not expected to receive any


great benefit from the provisions of the Bill, but they will work it with loyalty and co-operation, though doubts remain in their minds.

Commander Pursey: They will get security.

Mr. Hudson: I do not want to go over the arguments put forward on Second Reading and during the Committee stage, but there are doubts, and I should like to refer briefly to the one about the practicability of timing landings. The powers to regulate landings remain in the Bill exactly as they were stated to be when the Bill was introduced. They have not been altered at all. There must have been quite unanimous agreement that the timing of landing is necessary, desirable and practicable, but I do not think it is as practicable as many hon. Members believe.
Before the Bill leaves this House for another place, I am anxious that we should take full note of the practical difficulties that will arise. It was said on the Committee stage that owners already time landings; but there is a difference between owners on the spot, practical men who know their job and are in hour-to-hour touch with their vessels, timing landings, and an Authority which would be remote and could not hope to be in such close touch timing them. It will be quite impossible for them to act with such promptitude. If the owner of a fishing vessel on any occasion finds the market is short of fish, he can quite easily and properly urge his skippers to hasten to the market, and in doing that he is doing a public service. It is quite easy for the owner to do so, but with the best intentions in the world an Authority in Harrogate, let us say, cannot take such effective action so promptly.

Commander Pursey: As there is a difference of opinion about this, may I ask how the hon. Member can deny that an Authority in Harrogate can make use of wires, not directly but through the telephone system quite as efficiently and as accurately as an owner? Of course they can do so, even if the vessel is away at sea.

Mr. Hudson: If the hon. and gallant Member had been listening at all, he would have realised that I did not say any such thing as he suggests. I said there

was a difference between a body of men sitting in a remote place taking action of this kind and an owner on the spot taking action. I was not talking about wires or anything of that kind. Only last week two sister ships under the same management arrived from the same fishing grounds with the same quantity of fish. One of them had been away for 22 days but the other had been away for only 17 days. These are by no means exceptional cases, and the boat which is away 17 days will have had to remain at sea for another five days if the sort of timing to which some hon. Members have referred can take place.

Commander Pursey: Nonsense.

Mr. Hudson: That is a practical difficulty, and it is to those practical difficulties that I want to draw the attention of the House before this Bill leaves for another place. I hope the Minister will explain how these difficulties can be overcome. I conclude by adding my good wishes to the Authority in their future operations.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I want to make two points, the first in reply to the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Edward Evans). He claimed some satisfaction and pride in this Bill because of the part that he and some of his hon. Friends had played. I would not wish to detract from that pride and pleasure, but I would point out, since I am one of the few in the House at the moment who were here before the war, that some of us also worked on this matter, and we, too, are entitled to a little satisfaction.
If I may strike a personal note in a modest way, I would say that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby) may recollect that in the first few days of my coming to the House in 1932, I happened to be lucky in the ballot and I moved a Motion dealing with the fishing industry. I do not say that was the reason for everything that followed, but it happened that following upon that Motion there was a series of Acts of Parliament, including two Sea Fish Industry Acts. The Herring Industry Board was set up then, long before the war. I am only saying that this is a process of evolution in which we can all have some measure of satisfaction and pride.
We find that the Herring Industry Board has not so far achieved all that we then hoped, but we are beginning to see why it has failed, and I hope we have filled up the gaps in creating this new Authority. I trust that the new Authority will not suffer from the weaknessess from which we find the Herring Industry Board now suffers. I hope that the work of this new Authority will persuade the Minister to give the Herring Industry Board the added powers for which we on this side have so long asked. If that were to be so, the whole industry—not only herring but white fish and so on, because it is really one concern—would move forward.
Although in Acts of Parliament we talk about the white fish industry and the herring industry, those of us who represent fishing ports know that the industry cannot be divided in that way. The people whom I represent are today fishing for herring, and perhaps next week or next month the same boats and the same crews will go out for other kinds of fish. One hopes that we have all gained from the experience of the past, and, having all made our contributions—we on this side having made by far the greater contribution—we feel that the Authority will be a success.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Grimond: As I was fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye on the Second Reading, I should like now to mention only two points which I think should be mentioned in this Third Reading debate. I refer first to the question of transport, not only to the question of freight charges, but also to the necessity for better refrigerated transport, both by ship and train.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): The hon. Member may only refer to what is in the Bill.

Mr. Grimond: With respect, there are certain passages in the Bill which can be construed as referring to the powers of the Authority with reference to transport.
I will pass from that to emphasise the possibilities of the authority developing the shell fish industry in the north of Scotland. There has not been much mention of that matter in the debates on this Bill. I believe there is a great possibility of expanding lobster fishing in other

places as has been done in the Hebrides. I will conclude by joining the many hon. Members who have congratulated the Minister on this Bill, and by wishing every success to the Authority. I should like to say how glad I am that adequate powers are given to the Authority, and to express the hope that they will use those powers with firmness to deal with the questions of costs and marketing and the general organisation of this industry.

8.5 p.m.

Sir T. Dugdale: Before the Bill goes to another place I should like, on behalf of my hon. Friends, to express a message of good wishes to the personnel of the White Fish Authority in their efforts to help the sea fish industry. We have always held the view that, by and large, this Bill is a machinery Bill. We hope that in our labours we have set up a machine with sufficient powers to do the job, and yet with not too wide powers to frighten the industry, for without the co-operation of the fishermen the White Fish Authority will not do their job. If we have achieved our purpose of creating a balanced instrument in the White Fish Authority, then I think we have performed a useful task in our debates.
During our debates it has been quite clear that political considerations of a party nature have not entered into our discussions, except in very isolated cases. We have found that where differences have occurred they have been between the various sections of the fishing industry because of the different conditions attaching to the various ports in the country and the different conditions relating to inshore fishing and fishing in near waters, middle waters and far waters. I am satisfied, as I hope my hon. Friends and the Government are satisfied, that our debates have been well worth while and that they will be useful to the Authority now that it sets out in its difficult task of helping the industry and the nation. On behalf of my hon. Friends, I should like to send them a message of good wishes and also to offer congratulations to the Government on having introduced this Bill.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I had not intended to say a word but for the fact that so many questions have been put to me. I feel that it would be lacking in courtesy if I failed to reply to the hon. Member for Louth


(Mr. Osborne) who, like me, has sacrificed his dinner so far so that he could be here to listen to my reply. The hon. Member quite properly asked me about foreign quotas and asked to what extent the Authority would have power to deal with that kind of thing. I am afraid that only Governments could negotiate quotas of foreign landings, either here or, indeed, in any other country in Europe.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me what power the Authority have over the size of mesh. Here the Authority will have no power whatsoever. That is a question for an international convention such as the one which the Government promoted in 1946, but which unfortunately two, three or four other Governments have failed to approve. I think it is tragic that there are still Governments who fail to see the law of diminishing returns operating, who fail to see the cost of fish going up and up because catches are diminishing; and I hope that the Powers referred to will feel that the time has now arrived when they ought to do their duty to themselves, to their fishermen and to all other fish catching or consuming countries.
The hon. Member for Louth also asked me a question—or, at least, he went halfway to asking a question—which had to do with territorial waters. That again is a matter which can only be dealt with internationally. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Boothby), was quite right when he suggested that if the Authority had the powers of which the hon. Member for Louth spoke they would have to be exercised at Strasbourg or by some other international bureau.
The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) asked me whether the Authority had power to do this and that. I believe that the Authority have all the power that he personally seeks for them; but we have not only given them all the power we think they require to do the job effectively and proficiently; we have given them power in Clause 6 to come back and ask for more power if they think their efforts are restricted.

Mr. J. J. Robertson: Could my right hon. Friend say at this stage whether the Authority will have power to regulate prices, particularly prices of first sale—production prices?

Mr. Williams: That is not one of the powers we give to the Authority—to regulate prices. They have, however, the power to recommend to the Government anything relating to prices of either one kind of fish or another; but they have no direct power that they can exercise in fixing the prices of fish.
The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) asked me whether the Authority would be quick to go into action because of the urgency of the problem in Cornwall, and I can assure the House that the Authority have already been operating as an Authority-designate for many months. Their power, however, is limited until this Bill is passed; but I can assure the House that the members of the Authority have made themselves acquainted with many of the diverse problems affecting the industry, and when the power is really theirs they will not hesitate to exercise it at once.
I think we have all said enough about one small Bill, but I should like to express my gratitude and that of the Secretary of State for Scotland for the reception which the Bill has received and for the help we have received from all parts of the House at all stages. We were really quite a tea party in Committee, and on the Report stage, equally, we have been a happy party—

Mr. Boothby: Tea?

Mr. Williams: Unfortunately, I have had no tea either, and I am bringing my remarks to a very sudden close because, doubtless like several other hon. Members, I should like, after these hours of discussion of fish, to go to taste some. I should like to conclude by expressing my gratitude to all hon. Members who have taken part in the deliberations on this Bill, and by saying that I wish the Authority well. I feel we have chosen our representatives well. I am perfectly certain of their enthusiasm in the job that they have undertaken, and we hope for their sakes, for the sake of those who catch fish—a very dangerous occupation—and for the sake of the millions who consume fish, and also for the sake of this House of Commons, that the Authority will be able to make a job of the industry.

Mr. Robertson: Before my right hon. Friend sits down—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] But this is a very important point. I want him to make it quite clear


that he is standing by the assurance he gave me on Committee stage of the Bill that the Authority will have the power to regulate prices of first sale, if necessary. That was the understanding we all had, and I think that it would be well if my right hon. Friend gave that assurance now.

Mr. Williams: No, I do not think I ever gave my hon. Friend that assurance. What I did say—if my recollection serves me well—was that the Authority could recommend any type or kind of scheme to the Government that they wished, but they had not direct power to fix the prices of any fish. I hope I have not misled my hon. Friend. I certainly had no desire to do so.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES (PROTECTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL

As amended, considered.

Clause 2.—(METHODS OF FISHING.)

8.15 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNeil): I beg to move, in page 2, line 10, after "gaff," to insert "tailer."
In Committee I gave an undertaking that I would find a form of words to make the use of a tailer legal in connection with rod and line, and I did so in response to a plea from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salisbury (Mr. J. Morrison). It is that form of words I am offering now.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6.—(TAKING OF DEAD SALMON OR TROUT.)

Mr. McNeil: I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, after "duties," to insert:
or a person authorised in that behalf by the Secretary of State or a district board.
It will be remembered that the purpose of Clause 6 is, where poachers in gangs use the method of blowing up the fish, and then retiring, and then coming back, to make certain that we stop them from removing the dead fish. So we designed it to confine this power of removing the fish to constables, bailiffs, people having

fishing rights, or their agents. It was represented to us by hon. Members, and also by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electricity Board, that there were places where there might not be a bailiff, or there might not be a bailiff handy; and so we have sought to extend the power so that a person authorised by the Secretary of State or district board could do the job.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7.—(ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF SALMON OR TROUT.)

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move, in page 3, line 22, to leave out subsection (3).
Without the Amendment it would be lawful
to convict a person charged under this section on the evidence of one witness.
That means that anyone found in possession of any salmon or trout or instrument or explosive, either before or after the commission of any offence under Clauses 1 to 4 of the Bill, could be brought before the sheriff and be charged, and sentenced if convicted, as if he had committed the actual offence.
This is a new offence altogether, this illegal possession of salmon or trout or of an instrument that may be used in the commission of such an offence, and I think it is a regrettable feature that we should have this subsection (3) whereby what is, to my mind, a very dangerous principle in the law of evidence is being applied. I do not think it is a desirable principle that the conditions of proof or laws of evidence should be adjusted to meet geographical circumstances.
I think the main argument for the insistence upon this subsection is that these crimes are usually committed in lonely glens and sparsely populated areas, and that the people seeking to protect the fisheries cannot always go about in pairs and thus get corroborative evidence. I think it is a dangerous principle to say that if a crime is committed in a populous area we should have one standard of proof, and that if it is committed in a sparsely populated area we should have an entirely different standard of proof.
After all, the penalties resulting from a conviction under Clause 7 are a fine of £500 and imprisonment up to two years, and I think we should not lightly subject the people of Scotland to law of a kind


under which they can be so easily deprived of their liberty by the evidence of one witness without a single shred of corroborative evidence. It may not be a new principle, but still it is extending what I think is a dangerous principle, and I do not think it is desirable to extend it. After all, what other crimes are there committed in the same places, carrying such heavy penalties, conviction for which could be obtained on the same slender evidence?
While the purpose of the subsection is to make the law more effective and to make it easier to get convictions which, with the new penalties, will be a considerable deterrent, it also makes it easier to convict the innocent. The conditions which necessitate the introduction of this idea to convict on the evidence of one witness alone in the lonely glens and sparsely populated areas make it very difficult for the person wrongly accused to prove his innocence. I think that we should be very careful indeed about working on this principle. I think that the chances of a miscarriage of justice are considerably increased by relying upon this subsection. I know that in these circumstances it is difficult to do so, but we must strike a balance between getting convictions and getting errant justice.
My misgiving on this subsection is increased by two further points. Throughout this Bill we have strengthened the hands of those whose task it is to protect the fisheries and bring to book the criminals. We have, for instance, in Clause 10 given increased powers of search, examination and seizure, as well as the power to detain to water bailiffs and other appointed officers. In Clause 11, we have given wide powers to them, with or without a search warrant, to search in their own district and in other districts, and we give the constables the right to search, without warrant at all, near or far from the scene of the commission of a salmon crime.
We have deliberately—and I think rightly—made it possible to get evidence, but that evidence should be corroborated. Why should we insist on putting in this subsection which does away with the need for corroborative evidence? I should like to ask the Lord Advocate if it is necessary to depend upon this dangerous

departure from the accepted tradition of Scottish justice. The accepted idea of Scottish justice is that a man should not be sent to prison for two years on the word of one witness. After all—I know that it may be a small point—the other Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Acts, state that there shall be one credible witness, or witnesses; but here we do away with the word "credible."
I do not like this dangerous departure from the accepted idea in order mainly to get convictions. Under this subsection, the idea of the easy conviction principle is applied not only to the commercial salmon racketeers against whom the Bill is directed—the purpose of setting up the Committee to inquire into this matter was to get at this new racketeering in salmon, and we are legislating against them in Clauses 3 and 4—but it also applies in regard to Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4, which means that it is being used against the errant angler and the traditional poacher as well.
However much it may be argued that it should be used to deal with the salmon "spiv" and "racketeer," I do not think that it is right that this Clause and this easy way of getting convictions should be applied to those who may be convicted under Clauses 1 and 2. The idea is that it would be easier to prosecute under this Clause the traditional poacher and the rod and line man as well. We may, however, get the position—and this is a very real fear in some country districts—whereby this Clause and this subsection can be used vindictively to lower Scottish justice to the standard of conviction by denunciation. It could be a legal weapon of oppression. These things have happened before, and while the danger is there, I think that this is lowering the standard of Scottish justice. I know that the Lord Advocate will deprecate that statement as showing little confidence in the sheriffs of Scotland.

Mr. McKie: I hope that he will.

Mr. Ross: I hope so, too, but what I have said is not intended to be a slight on the sheriffs. Not long ago in this City of London an experienced magistrate sentenced someone to three months' imprisonment. It was a case. I think, of a stolen wallet. The wallet turned up the


next day and the conviction had to be wiped out. That shows that even experienced people can be misled by the evidence. The evidence of one man who is a fallible mortal is more likely to be fallible in these circumstances than if it were the evidence of one witness plus corroborative evidence. I think that if we limit this convicting evidence, we are placing the sheriffs in a position in which they are more liable to make mistakes.
I should like to ask the Lord Advocate whether this Clause can be used as a means of legal oppression of the traditional and more inoffensive poacher. Where I dislike this Clause and dislike the Bill is where it departs from the original purpose of getting at, and continuing to get at, the commercial "racketeer," and where it may be used to harry and hound the small offender. I should like the Lord Advocate to give me an assurance that this Clause will be strictly limited to those cases where otherwise the mobile gangster might be able to laugh at the law. I do not desire to make the law vindictive in every case, and I hope that it will not be used to harry and hound the ordinary poacher. Our purpose in moving this Amendment is not to make the law ineffective but to make the law effective against those who have rendered this Bill necessary.

Mr. Carmichael: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think that the case has been fairly well stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), and therefore only a few words need to be added. We are very disturbed at the introduction of this Clause in the Bill. This is a departure. I am quite satisfied that the Lord Advocate has not introduced it because he wants to be vindictive against the ordinary angler, but that the only purpose he has in mind is to catch the gangster. That was the argument he submitted on the last occasion. It was stated then, and it should be repeated again, that the law of Scotland does not countenance the evidence of one witness. It was Lord Mackintosh who stated in the High Court of Glasgow:
It is a fairly fixed principle in the law of Scotland that the essential details of a charge cannot be proved by the statement of one witness alone. There must be corroborative evidence.

If we introduce this provision into this Measure we shall be establishing a principle. If we establish the principle of conviction on the evidence of one witness in regard to people being in possession of salmon or instruments associated with the catching of salmon, it will be possible to introduce the same principle in any further legislation. We are very anxious about the insistence on this aspect of the Bill, and I hope that the Lord Advocate will give some assurance that, while the Government are framing the Bill for the purpose of catching these organised gangsters, the ordinary angler will get all possible protection and will not be open to vindictiveness which obviously exists in many parts of the country.
The House knows it is a fact in Scottish history that there is a certain amount of enmity between the landlord and the ordinary angler who does a bit of fishing. I do not use the word "poaching" because I want to be perfectly fair in connection with the Bill. I hope that we shall have some indication from the Lord Advocate to show that at least it is quite impossible to make the Bill work without this provision.

8.30 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): When this issue was being considered during the Committee stage the debate lasted one and a half hours. The various arguments were fairly fully canvassed, and I gave an undertaking that I would look at the matter again before the Report stage because of the very strong and quite understandable feelings certain Members had in respect of this issue. There still seem to be a certain amount of misapprehension in relation to this principle.
No one denies that generally speaking in the law of Scotland corroboration is required to secure a conviction. But that is not a rule without exception. Accordingly, it is not right to say that this is a departure, or to use the expression that we are establishing a principle. We are doing neither of these two things, because although the common law is that corroboration is required, we have found from time to time the legislature saying in statutes that owing to the particular circumstances of the particular case the evidence of one witness will be sufficient to secure a conviction. There must be a further qualification to that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said that in previous statutes the word "credible" was used. In previous statutes the wording was: "the evidence of one credible witness or witnesses" whereas in this Bill no reference to the word "credible" is made. It does not matter whether the word is inserted or not, because no court would be entitled to rely on the evidence of any witness or witnesses unless it was satisfied that the witness or witnesses was or were credible. There is no significance about the absence of the word "credible."
I want to stress the point that, merely because the court is enabled to convict on one witness it does not mean it will be satisfied with the evidence of one witness. It merely means that the court can be satisfied on the evidence of one witness.
My hon. Friend suggested that it will be difficult for the innocent person to prove his innocence, but whether we have one witness or two witnesses, or a multitude of witnesses, there is still no onus on the accused person to prove his innocence. The onus remains throughout on the Crown to establish guilt. Therefore, it is a wrong approach to suggest that an accused person will have to prove his innocence.

Mr. Ross: It is going to be comparatively easy to prove guilt if only the evidence of one person is needed.

The Lord Advocate: It is not going to be easy unless we are proceeding on the evidence of a reliable witness and one accepted by the court.
I gave this matter very careful consideration, and in order to see the justification for it we have to remember the background. The Maconochie Report strangely enough did not make any recommendation that such an offence should be constituted. In the law of Scotland at the present time there is no offence of this nature for salmon or trout. What did transpire at that Maconochie Committee was that the police gave evidence to the effect that while they frequently knew, without having the requisite evidence, that offences were being committed, they were only able to get the delinquents some distance removed from the scene of the offence, and obviously not only in possession of the fish but of the implements of their illegal depredations. Under the existing law that did not entitle

us to prosecute, which was a grave omission. Although the Maconochie Committee did not recommend the constitution of this offence, it seemed to us, when framing this Bill, that without a provision such as this many of the other provisions of this Bill would be rendered nugatory, and so we introduce it.
What is the main difficulty we are seeking to meet? It is that these offences take place in remote areas where there can be great difficulty indeed to have people patrolling in pairs. It is easier sometimes to get more than one person where the actual offence is taking place, but once the offenders get away from the scene and scatter all over the country it is difficult to get a patrol operating in pairs. So we felt that if we wanted to catch organised gangsters we had to have the power vested in a single person to produce evidence which, if accepted, would entitle a conviction to be recorded.
In doing so we realise that we were departing from the general rule, though there are precedents for this particular type of offence because in the analogous offence, to which reference was made on Second Reading and during the Committee, that of being in illegal possession of game, exactly the same type of principle applies, namely, that the evidence of one witness if believed justifies a conviction. That dates back to the Poaching Prevention Act, 1862.
In these circumstances it is difficult to say that despite the reasons which obviously made it necessary in 1862 we should not have it in this particular Bill. Even before the fishing season opened on 15th February this year, reports were coming in of gangs already operating in various parts of Scotland. These operations take place in the widespread, remoter parts of Scotland where it would be difficult to get two people available when stopping a motor car or when stopping a person. It is true that the law must apply equally to the gangs and to individuals. One could not have a provision, such as seemed to be suggested by my hon. Friends, that the Clause will apply only to the salmon spivs and racketeers. It would be rather a novel form of legislation if it had an application of that nature. Once it is the law, it is applicable to any case which falls within the Clause.
To suggest that this Clause is lowering the standard of proof to the extent of resulting in conviction by denunciation is overstating the case so completely as to rob the argument, so ably adduced, of a great deal of its effect. While there may be an argument that we should or should not have corroboration, to suggest that by relying upon one witness we are getting to the standard of conviction by denunciation is rather absurd, because at the end of the day the sheriff has to be satisfied with the evidence of one witness. We may take the case of England, where it is much more common to be able to get a conviction on the evidence of one witness. We may say that our general system is superior to that of England and raise a great deal of controversy, but whatever the merits of that argument may be no one would suggest that because in the law of England in the general case the evidence of one witness will suffice, the English get their convictions by denunciation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock said that cases had been established where mistakes had been made and that if we had one witness mistakes would be easier, but mistakes can be made either on the evidence of one witness or of several witnesses, as has sometimes been the case in the past. I need only mention the names of Oscar Slater and Adolph Beck. One could cite cases ad infinitum where mistakes have been made not on the evidence of one witness but of several witnesses. No system is perfect, and mistakes of that kind are liable to occur.
I was asked whether this system would be used for legal oppression. The answer is obviously that as long as the administration of justice in this country remains on the high standard that we now have and have enjoyed, I am sure that whether we have one witness or several witnesses there will be no question of legislation being used for oppression. As the person responsible at the present time for the administration of criminal justice in Scotland I can give the assurance that there will be no question of legal oppression. I know that it was not really intended, but I would resent very much the suggestion that public prosecutions would give any suggestion of legal oppression whatsoever.
Then my hon. Friend asked whether I would give an undertaking that the opera-

tion of the Clause would be restricted only to the gangs and not to the individual, to the legitimate poacher who, by some aberration of memory, either forgets to obtain permission, or forgets to put the salmon into his own pot but hands it over to the local hotel keeper. Those are aberrations of memory that are liable to occur, but I cannot say that I will not operate the law in the interest of one section of the community.
Each case must be determined on its own circumstances. If the evidence is in relation to the commission of an offence under Clauses 1 to 4, the accused will be charged under those Clauses, but if it relates to an offence under Clause 7 the accused will be charged under Clause 7. We may find people, at a distance removed from the point where they caught the fish, in possession of the fish and gear, from which the inference can be drawn that the fish has been illegally taken, although we are not able to pinpoint the spot on the river from which the fish were taken. That was one of the dangers and difficulties of the past.
8.45 p.m.
I have come to the conclusion that, on the whole, the necessity for preventing the depredations upon our fish stocks in Scotland by gangs is such as to justify the invocation of this rule of evidence, bringing this on all fours with the rule applying to game. My hon. Friend wanted to know if we would give the ordinary angler all the protection that we could. If a man is an ordinary angler he does not need protection.

Mr. Ross: Even when he is poaching?

The Lord Advocate: If he is poaching he is not an ordinary angler. Perhaps I might, as inoffensively as possible, call him an extraordinary angler.

Mr. Ross: He can still be accused of poaching.

The Lord Advocate: I agree that he can still be accused of poaching, but the evidence will be weighed by the Procurator Fiscal or, in serious cases involving indictment, by me, the Solicitor-General or one of our deputes, before any prosecution is initiated. If we are to return to the argument that in order to justify a grievance against an angler some people are prepared to give perjured evidence,


we are liable to get that whether one witness or two witnesses come forward to give evidence.
By and large we have to make up our minds whether we are to make an effective assault on the gangsters who are ruining the fish in Scotland. If it is necessary to introduce this rule in order to do so—we take into account the very cogent arguments advanced by my hon. Friends—at the end of the day it may be a balance of advantages against disadvantages, and, even judging the matter from that point of view, having regard to the serious nature of the problem with which we are faced, we have come to the conclusion that the balance is in favour of adopting this system in order more effectively to wage war against the gangsters. In these circumstances I am afraid that I must resist the Amendment.

Mr. Jack Jones: The House may think that a contribution by an hon. Member from South of the Border in a debate of this description is almost next to sabotage, but I want to say something in support of the Amendment. I speak as an angler and a justice of the peace, and also as one who has been accused occasionally of doing a little bit of what one might call "fair poaching"—and in Scotland, too. We have heard the argument that it would weaken the Bill to delete the subsection, but I submit that that is not the case. In a court of law the value of the evidence of one witness or two, three or four witnesses is assessed according to the type of evidence submitted, but what will happen in the following circumstances?
We may have the case of a man returning south after visiting Scotland by car, and he might buy a salmon, not knowing whence it had come. He might have a rod and line with him and might have been doing some legitimate coarse fishing. Suppose he decides to take a look at the river and is discovered there with a salmon in his car. A case of that sort happened. A bailiff was told that unless he got a conviction within a month, a more efficient bailiff would be sought. Thereupon the bailiff brought an accusation against a person who had previously taken salmon, although he had not done so that day. The case came before the sheriff. The bailiff said that he had found a salmon in the man's possession. The man went into the witness box and

stated that on the day in question he did no such thing as take salmon. On that occasion the sheriff was convinced that the accused man was not guilty and gave his decision accordingly. Coming out of the court the bailiff complained that it was a damned shame that a bailiff of his standing should be put on oath in a fishing case of that type.
I submit legitimately and fairly that if this concession were made and subsection (3) deleted, it would not weaken the case against the gangster poacher or the individual village poacher. It depends entirely on whether the evidence is, according to the idea of the sheriff, correct or otherwise. I submit that if this subsection remains in the Bill it will give an opportunity to the vindictive bailiff. There are not many, but there may be the odd one who has for a long time failed to make a case against the person he has been wanting to get hold of. The Lord Advocate, therefore, could reasonably accept this Amendment without weakening the power of the sheriff or the ability of a bailiff to get a conviction.

Mr. Manuel: My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) spoke on this matter in a previous debate. I associated myself then with what they said and I associate myself with them on this Amendment. The Lord Advocate indicated that it made no difference if the word "credible" were removed. May I put the following point to him? I take it that hardly any sheriff would demur if the witness coming forward was a bailiff. It would be hard to say he was not a credible witness, yet in many communities the standing of bailiffs is not considered very high. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) said, we know that convictions have been tried for over long periods by bailiffs or gamekeepers, or persons of that type employed by landlords and lairds, because they suspect someone may have been poaching or infringing the law but they could never get any real proof of it.
As I see it, we could have in many of our Highland communities, by this one witness procedure, convictions being secured which previously would not have been thought of. I am not speaking in relation to gangs, which must be sup


pressed with the utmost energy, but of little Highland villages miles remote from anywhere, with trout but no salmon fishing, and where the lads of the village have been accustomed to fishing the lochs and rivers for trout. There it will be much easier, if there is some person who wants a conviction, than it would have been previously when they were never even asked if they had a permit to go on that loch or river.

Mr. Gage: If water bailiffs are the sort of people the hon. Gentleman describes, who might give perjured evidence, why should not two give it just as much as one?

Mr. Manuel: Because there is a double chance of tripping them up. The defence at any rate would have an opportunity of questioning both.
The Lord Advocate said something about the principle having been incorporated in the Act of 1862 in connection with the game laws, but that is no valid reason for saying that it is reasonable today. Many things happened in former centuries, and I believe that in earlier days people could be hanged for taking sheep. We are not prepared to say that because of the great vintage of the law that provision would necessarily be good now.
Because of our accepting—and we do accept readily—the power of search being extended where hitherto there was not the power for bailiffs to make a search, convictions can be obtained very much easier. Formerly one might have seen a salmon but one would not know whether it had been poached, although one might have had suspicions. But now that there is to be opportunity for search by bailiffs, the Bill is strengthened in this respect.
This matter might have been dealt with far more realistically by people with knowledge of angling conditions. I do not think that the Lord Advocate is an angler—at any rate, not in the sense about which we are talking tonight. The Secretary of State does not have the same excuse; I understand he is quite an ardent angler. One who is familiar with angling knows that the hour of gloaming is the hour when one can get a trout easier, perhaps, than at any other period of the day.

Mr. Carmichael: My hon. Friend is giving himself away.

Mr. Manuel: I am talking of legitimate fishing.
It would be quite easy for brothers or twins, or people like that, to be fishing in the gloaming and to be mistaken for each other, but the one witness could be quite definite in his impression of the person who had been fishing. If the sheriff is a non-angler, and imagines that everything happens in daylight and is crystal clear, his mind will not be receptive to the conditions under which fishing takes place.
My right hon. and learned Friend stated that the English law in this connection followed the one-witness procedure very much more than did the Scottish. While I believe that is true, it is very seldom that a person is convicted in England on the uncorroborated evidence of only one witness. I have not known of a single case of this kind in which there has been a conviction without corroborative evidence. Bearing everything in mind, we are taking a step backward, and I hope we can have some assurance that in the type of case we have been discussing there will be protection against a misuse of the Clause.

Mr. Pryde: I cannot hope to display the easy, facile, elastic logic of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones). The Lord Advocate, with all his undoubted talent, has argued that it is good law to convict a man on the evidence of only one witness. I should like to ask my right hon. and learned Friend if the evidence of a landlord would be considered sufficient to convict a prisoner in the dock. All the wealth of the Lord Advocate's oratory would mean nothing to the innocent man in the dock who stands to be convicted on the evidence of, say, one spiteful, venomous witness with a grudge against him. It is no good trying to blame the sheriff, because the sheriff must do his duty. His duty is to take the evidence which is put before him and from it to convict the prisoner.
9.0 p.m.
That is the position in law, and I am thinking of the local aura just as my hon. Friends the mover and seconder pointed out that in local areas there were local


influences. I have in mind one case in particular in a town not far from where I stay where, one Christmas Day, a miner who had a great love of birds wanted to form an aviary and went out and caught bullfinches. He was caught and went to the sheriff's court and that day I happened also to be in the sheriffs' court—[Interruption]—for quite good reasons, and this is what I heard. Several cases were tried on similar charges; John Smith, fined 2s. 6d.; William Brown, a weaver, fined 7s. 6d.; John Ernit, a miner of Bonnyrigg, fined £10. That is what I am afraid of happening in the great River Tweed area.
I have no doubt at all that we should take stern measures against the gangs, especially in the North of Scotland, but this Measure will not only be applied in the North of Scotland, but in South Scotland and the landlord will be able to go to court and get a conviction against anyone whom the water bailiff suggests is a poacher. There are landlords in the House of Commons.

Sir Ian Fraser: And poachers.

Mr. Pryde: Landlords are the greatest poachers. In the early stages of this Bill I submitted evidence of cases where gear had been forfeited and no charge had been levelled. I have given instances of youngsters who have been accused of poaching and fined sums which were more than the amounts stipulated. There are good grounds for apprehension by the mover and seconder of the Amendment.
I think that at this stage my right hon. Friends would be well advised to reconsider the whole Bill, because this Bill is going to play into the hands of local angling associations. In my constituency one angling association charges outsiders £4 5s. for a season while it gives to the local angler a whole season's fishing for 15s. This Bill and this particular Clause will conserve salmon to such an extent that people will be afraid to go near the banks of a salmon river in case they are apprehended and convicted on the evidence of one witness.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 19.—(FORFEITURES.)

Mr. McNeil: I beg to move, after "Part I" to insert "or section thirteen."

The House will appreciate that offences against the weekly close times are provided for in this Measure. It will also be clear that people offending in this way may do as much harm to the stocks as people offending whom we have been considering in other parts of the Bill. We therefore thought it would be better to bring the penalties into line and this Amendment is to provide that where offences take place they will be liable to forfeiture of gear.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 9, after "Part I," insert "or section thirteen."—[Mr. McNeil.]

Clause 24.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Mr. McNeil: I beg to move, in page 11, line 22, to leave out from "than," to end of line 24, and to insert:
a vehicle used for the purposes of a passenger transport service within the meaning of the Transport Act, 1947.
By this Amendment we have attempted to secure a definition of a vehicle which I think almost completely meets the wishes of the House. We thought it was a case of making sure that the definition was sufficiently wide to permit proceedings against vehicles known to be employed for this purpose. On the other hand, we did not want vehicles travelling in the ordinary way of business or for pleasure, or public service vehicles to be incommoded. I hope that hon. Members will find this suitable.

Lord Dunglass: As the right hon. Gentleman knows my right hon. and hon. Friends were rather concerned about this matter and I should like to thank him for the consideration he has given to it, and the way he has met our point.

Amendment agreed to.

First Schedule.—(CONSEQUENTIAL AND MINOR AMENDMENTS.)

Mr. McNeil: I beg to move, in page 12, line 9, column 2, to leave out from "nine," to end of line 11, and to insert "paragraph (2) shall be omitted."
It will be remembered that when we made our first effort to secure a Clause covering the weekly close time there resided with the Secretary of State power to vary the application of close time. When we offered the compromise which was unanimously accepted by the House,


I indicated it would be better to end that power. This repeals Section 9 (2) of The Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1868.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. McNeil.]

9.9 p.m.

Lord Dunglass: We consider this to be a useful Measure and we have no desire to delay the Third Reading. There are two or three points, as for example the licensing of dealers, on which the Maconachie Committee lay great stress, and which we would have liked to see in the Bill. However, we do not intend to go over that ground again. On the whole, we are grateful to the Government and to the right hon. Gentleman who introduced this Measure for the trouble taken over it and the consideration given to our views.

9.10 p.m.

Brigadier Thorp: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass) that this is a useful Measure and I would express my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for a very kind letter from him which cleared up a point I raised about whether the lakes in Northumberland were affected by the Bill. He told me that the lakes, ponds, reservoirs, etc., were not affected, unless they drained into the River Tweed.
I also want to ask what is the date of the coming into operation of this Bill? Is it the day when it gets His Majesty's Assent? If I understand the position correctly, is it not a little unfair that it should come into operation now when employers have taken on their fishermen from the beginning of the year at certain wages on the basis of 36 hours a week? That is true. It is no good hon. Gentlemen opposite shaking their heads. Now the basis will be altered in a week's time or a fortnight's time, and they will go on to a basis of 42 hours close time. Therefore, the whole system will have to be altered.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. McKie: Like my two hon. Friends who have spoken, I have no desire to stand between the House and a decision

on the Third Reading of this Bill; nor have I any wish whatever to criticise the Bill. This is the last chance we have of making any points we wish to make regarding the actual substance of what is in the Measure. When a Bill on Third Reading is about to leave this House, we can only discuss the Clauses as they then stand. We are not at liberty to say what we think should have been in the Bill.
First, with regard to Clause 7, which this evening has been the subject of a good deal of controversy—though I must say that it was controversy conducted in a much more amicable atmosphere than was the case on the Committee stage—I at once congratulate hon. Members opposite on their much more restrained attitude this evening. Mention has been made by the Lord Advocate of the principle of the one witness as it was first incorporated in the Game Laws in 1862. I am bound to say that, as well as a constituency interest, I have a personal interest in this Bill and, in the form which has long been the customary procedure in this House, I declare it at once.
I was about to remind the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate—I am sure he has not forgotten, though his hon. Friends behind him perhaps never knew it—that the principle of the one witness, in cases of salmon fishing, goes back long before 1862 to 1804 when the Solway Salmon Act passed through all stages, having been brought into being by the Government of Mr. William Pitt. I do not know whether the name of William Pitt appeals to hon. Members opposite, but it certainly appeals to me.
I certainly hope that the Solway salmon fishers who have so long enjoyed the benefit—hon. Members opposite may object to the use of the word "benefit"—of the one-witness procedure, will not have their interests jeopardised by the passage into law of this Bill with Clause 7 as it now stands. I hope that the Lord Advocate may be able to clear my mind on that subject. He must believe me when I say that I have had certain representations on this point. The Secretary of State for Scotland appears to be very annoyed, but I must put the points on behalf of the people whose interests I have represented for so long in this House. If the Lord Advocate is in a position to clear my mind on the matter, I shall be very happy.
I am very glad indeed that a reasonable compromise has been achieved on Clause 13 on the question of the weekend close time. There again, the interests of the Solway salmon fishers differ, perhaps, from the interests of those concerned in salmon fishing in other parts of Scotland, owing to the very quick ebb and flow of the tides in that estuary. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who is smiling, will be familiar with the lines in Sir Walter Scott's "Marmion":
Love swells like the Solway, but ebbs like its tide.
As I was saying, already the week-end close period has in effect been something like 48 hours. If we had agreed to the previous provisions in Clause 13, there might have been created very considerable prejudice so far as the salmon fishers of the Solway Firth are concerned. I am delighted at the reasonable compromise which has been effected, and I certainly think that both sides of the House were well advised to accept it. I congratulate the Government on the Bill, and wish it a speedy passage.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: This Bill is about to receive its Third Reading with so many blessings from the other side that I feel that it would be quite unfair to allow it to leave the House without a parting kick from this side. We have had a good deal to say about it during the previous proceedings, but I am sure the whole House now recognises it for what it is—a landlord's charter—and, as such, we have very freely condemned it on this side. Even though the Bill has not yet received the blessing of another place, nevertheless, with the wholehearted support of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) and his supporters on the opposite side of the House, I think there is no doubt as to its reception in another place.
It may be interesting to note some of the effects which are already taking place as a result of this Bill. I have in my hand a letter which I received yesterday from a Tweed fisherman, who happens to be a friend of mine, but not distinguished even as an occasional poacher. His letter tells me that, so far as the Tweed is concerned—and he knows the river very well—the Bill has not been well received by the ordinary people, as it clearly gives the owners of the rivers more power and

privilege than ever before. I think it is a pity that any person outside this House should be writing to us in terms such as these.
I quoted to the House on another occasion the heavy charges now imposed for fishing for salmon in Scottish rivers, particularly in the area which the hon. Member for Galloway knows so well—the Solway Firth, where £1,000 per annum is charged. The writer of this letter tells me that, on the part of the Tweed owned by the Duke of Roxburgh, the rate for a day's fishing has already been increased to £1 and that, if an individual with a permit does catch a salmon, he has to go back to the owners with the salmon which he has caught and ask if he may retain the fish.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that is going beyond the Bill.

Mr. Rankin: I thoroughly agree with that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I say, without offence, that I was trying to make that particular point in order to emphasise what I have already said—that it would be a pity if we on this side of the House parted with this Bill without a final kick. Now that I have had my final kick, I thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for your indulgence.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. McNeil: I do not want to hold the House at this late hour, particularly as I know that, after our Scottish friends have departed for their trains, there is a little praying to be done by some of their hon. Friends.
One question was asked me, and I think only one. The hon. and gallant Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Brigadier Thorp) asked me if I could say when the Bill would become operative. Of course, I cannot. The Act provides that it shall be operated when it receives the Royal Assent. With great respect, it is a little ungrateful when the Law Officers have strained to find a formula acceptable to these commercial organisations that they should seek for further help which we had no intention of giving. I think we have offered a reasonable protection.
I am indebted to the noble Lord the Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass) and his right hon. and hon. Friends for their help. Despite the bitterness, I thought my


hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) was weeping for the clear rich streams which flowed through his division.

Mr. Rankin: No, not bitterness.

Mr. McNeil: If we have had help, as we have had, from the Opposition, I know we have had a great deal of help from several of my hon. Friends. It is rather dangerous to single out one, but I should like to refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde), a great angler, a great friend of anglers and a very restrained debater.
I know some of my hon. Friends would like the Bill to go further. It was not meant as a massive Measure. It is not concerned with the landlord but with the freshwater stock of Scotland. We hope the Bill will improve that stock. I particularly hope that the limited extension of the close time may contribute to that. In parting with the Bill I might add that we have shown throughout its course a tenderness for the traditional Scottish poacher who finds trout quite as attractive as salmon.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — UTILITY PRAM RUGS

9.22 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 23rd February, 1951, entitled the Utility Pram Rugs (Manufacture and Supply) (Amendment) Order, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 303), a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th February, be annulled.
May I say at once how delighted I am that this Prayer has come on at a reasonable hour, because it makes its discussion much easier for all hon. Members interested in it. The effect of the Order against which this Prayer is moved is to amend the principal Order, which is the Utility Pram Rugs (Manufacture and Supply) Order, 1950, by substituting a new schedule of maximum prices which may be charged.
The original Order came into operation on 10th July, 1950, and the amending Order came into operation on 5th March,

1951—a matter of some eight months. But the increases which are brought into operation are of 25 per cent. and upwards in these utility pram rugs, according to the sizes of the rugs and, of course, according to whether or not they are embroidered. That increase of 25 per cent. in eight months compares with an increase in the cost of living of only 3 per cent. in that same period. Therefore, on the fact of it, it would seem that the rise is an exceptionally large one and one which calls for some explanation by the Government before we are prepared to let them have this Order without any questioning whatever.
I am fully aware of the fact that utility pram rugs are made of wool and that the price of wool has risen by 200 per cent. in the same period. But surely the fact that the Government in their wool buying organisation have made a profit of some £12 million would have enabled a less drastic increase to be made in the prices of these very necessary commodities. I say that pram rugs are necessary. I speak as the father of two very tiny daughters. Pram rugs are necessary for the protection of infants against chills when they are wheeled out in winter, because if children are not protected from cold their fathers' lives become quite impossible.
These pram rugs are supplied under the utility clothing scheme, and, as I understand it, the object of that scheme, which I concede is of great value, is to keep necessary clothing and household goods as moderate in price as possible and so mitigate the rigours that there would otherwise be in the increased cost of living. So far as utility pram rugs are concerned, they are rigours which affect those young couples with growing families.
I should point out, because I think it is material, that my inquiries show that pram rugs are not referred to in the cost of living index which, as I say, rose by only four points, or 3 per cent., in the period, and that is a further reason why we should be meticulous in inquiring about such a large increase in price as 25 per cent. in eight months. Those are my main points—that there has been this large increase in a short time, that if the utility scheme has any real meaning at all the Government ought to be avoiding


such large and sudden increases, and that it seems that such increases where wool is concerned could be avoided if the enormous profit of £12 million in one year were being used for the benefit of the consumers to a greater extent than that profit is apparently being used.
Those are my main points. I have two subsidiary points which I wish to make. First, I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether before these increases came into operation, and at the time that they came into operation, there were still available in this country quite considerable supplies of wool which had been bought last year at the old and cheap prices, because if so I cannot see the reason for increasing the prices until those old stocks are exhausted. My second point is this. Utility goods with fixed maximum prices should be confined essentially to necessaries. I have heard it said that pram rugs are necessities, and indeed I have been told by my wife that they are. We ourselves have two utility pram rugs.
This amending Order and the principal Order as well refer not only to pram rugs but also to the embroidery which can go upon them. I understand that the Government are losing revenue that they might very well get otherwise, by including the embroidery in the utility scheme. It seems quite an unnecessary concession for the Government to be making, and I should like to know what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say about that, because it seems to me that while they were amending the principal Order they could quite well have omitted the embroidery from the principal Order altogether. I should be obliged if I could have a reasoned reply from the Parliamentary Secretary to those questions.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: I beg to second the Motion that has been so ably proposed by my hon. Friend.
Like my hon. Friend I am delighted that we are tonight discussing one of these Orders at a more appropriate time than we have done in the past. I do not want to keep the House late. My hon. Friend has made his points very clearly indeed, and very excellently. I also am the father of a number of children—four—and my only daughter is of an age to

derive a certain amount of benefit from one of these utility pram rugs.
This Order, to my mind, is rather difficult to understand because of what my hon. Friend said about the embroidery. If hon. Members will look at the Order—I notice that there appear to be very few hon. Members present who have the Order with them—they will find that the prices are quoted "with" or "without" embroidery. If one looks at the first two items on the Order one sees that the first item is quoted without embroidery and is increased by 10½d. In the second item with embroidery there is an increase of 1s. Then we go a bit farther down and we find that the next item is quoted without embroidery at an increase of 1s. 0½ The next item is without embroidery at 1s. 2½d. increase, and the next item is without embroidery at 1s. 0½d. increase. Well, it does seem that there have been made illogical increases with or without embroidery, and they do not follow any logical sequence, and I should like to have some explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary about that.
My hon. Friend mentioned the most important point when he referred to the cost-of-living index figures. These figures are not quoted in the cost-of-living figures published by the Government. We know that the cost-of-living index figures do not include many of the essentials that the average family has to buy, and such an increase of 1s. on a 5s. 11½d. pram rug is quite out of proportion to any of the so-called explanations that are given from time to time in this House about the cost-of-living index figures.
I promised to be short. I do not want to keep the House late. We never do want to keep the House late on these Prayers. We move them because we want certain explanations, and we feel that we should receive those explanations, and that the House is entitled to receive them.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Bing: As this Motion appears in my name, perhaps the House will pardon me if I say a word about it. Like hon. Gentlemen opposite, I am very glad indeed that it is possible to discuss this Motion at a reasonable hour. I am sorry for them that they did not see fit to pay any tribute to those of my hon. Friends who studied the Business for the week and who set this Motion


down on a day when there was likely to be an opportunity for its early discussion.

Mr. Renton: The hon. and learned Gentleman may recollect that I put this Motion on the Order Paper on three separate occasions before Easter. On the last of those three occasions, the Leader of the House, with great courtesy, said that he would ensure that facilities were given for me to move this Prayer before the time expired. I therefore did not rush to the Order Paper the next morning, as the hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends did. I waited in the hope of hearing from the Leader of the House. I did not hear from him, and I have not heard from him yet, but I did see that the Prayer was put down in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and so I added my name.

Mr. Bing: Now that we have reached such an agreeable state in dealing with these matters, I do not want to quarrel over this point. All that happened was that when the House was on the point of adjournment and it appeared that the Prayer had not been set down, I felt that an important Prayer such as this should have adequate notice on the Order Paper. Therefore, I put it down. No one can say that I pressed my own claim. I was only too willing not to catch Mr. Speaker's eye and to allow the hon. Gentleman, whose name stands seventh or eighth on the list, to put forward the matter.
I hope that, in the same spirit as we have dealt with this matter, we may collaborate on both sides of the House in dealing with Prayers of this sort that need discussion, at a time of night which gives hon. Members on both sides of the House who wish to speak about them an opportunity to do so in a reasonable way. I am glad that the Prayer has been brought up. I appreciate the way in which it has been moved and seconded, and I am glad that I have played some small part in seeing that it has come forward at a convenient hour.

9.37 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Rhodes): This is all very pleasant. It is such a change from that celebrated night when there was so much coming and going. Some remarkable facts have come out in the

course of this debate. It is very nice to know that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) is such a customer of the woollen trade. With regard to his inquiries about embroidery prices, I must ask him to apply himself to the Schedule, because he will see that the prices are set out in some detail with and without embroidery and, so far as I know, the "with" and "without" are clear enough and the prices opposite each item are specified. I do not see how we can have anything fairer than that.
With regard to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton), I am glad that he has had his chance. He has had a quite adequate period of gestation for this Prayer and at last he has had the satisfaction of moving it. I am glad of that because I accepted an apology from him the first time, and I gave him one in return about three weeks later; but it is all very confused and I am glad that the matter has reached this stage.
May I say, in answer to the hon. Gentleman, that this is an amending Order. It is not a cloth Order, and it is not a garment Order; it is simply a pram rug Order.

Mr. Renton: Utility pram rugs.

Mr. Rhodes: Yes. It is not a blanket Order. The pram rugs are made by different manufacturers from those who make blankets, so we require to have an Order specially for them.
May I answer the points which the hon. Member has raised. He will see that there is one Schedule, taken out of the previous Order, which I cannot discuss. He must realise that this is the only rise in price there has been for utility pram rugs since 1947. Up to the time of this Order there has been an increase in the price of wool cloth of 30 per cent. There was consultation with the trade and, after a costing investigation by the accountancy advisers of the Board of Trade, it became clear at the end of last year that the manufacturers could not absorb any part of this 30 per cent. increase. Therefore, we made this Order, to come into operation on 5th March. It is as simple as that, and I wish that at Orders were just as simple. With that explanation, and to save the time of the House, I hope that the Motion can be withdrawn.

9.42 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I have listened with great interest to what has been said about the increase in the price of wool. I think the Government ought to do a little more to keep down the cost of these things which are sending up the prices for the public. The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) expressed great satisfaction that this debate was taking place at a reasonable hour. I would point out that this has nothing to do with us. It is entirely a matter for the Government. When the Government put on a long programme, as they did on the day off the Army Estimates which did not finish until after two o'clock, Prayers can be taken only after Government Business has ended. The hon. and learned Member was not quite as candid as he might have been, because he knows perfectly well why this debate has come about so early.
I am sorry that the President of the Board of Trade has not addressed himself to the fundamental issue involved in respect of all these orders leading to an increase in the cost of living.

Mr. Speaker: We are discussing only one Order.

Sir H. Williams: This is one of a series which authorises an increase in prices. I appreciate that the manufacturers would be sunk unless they were authorised to charge higher prices, but we are anxious that the Government should do something to prevent these increases in the cost of living.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. Renton: Although the Parliamentary Secretary replied to one important point raised in the debate, I must say that I found his speech as a whole, bearing in mind what it omitted, was "woolly," to use an expression which seems appropriate to the Order. He has not dealt with the point about the unevenness and illogicality of the particular prices. He has not dealt with my point that embroidery is a luxury and ought not to be part of the utility scheme. He has not dealt with the point about pram rugs not toeing included in the cost of living index. He has made no reference to what I thought was a rather constructive suggestion on my part, that the £12 million profit made by the Government out of someone in the buying and selling of wool

should be used to mitigate the harsh rise in the cost of utility goods. I must confess I am very disappointed indeed but, on the other hand, we have had a very amicable debate which, at any rate, is some cause for satisfaction, and I shall not ask my hon. Friends to carry this matter to its logical conclusion, but shall leave it where it is at this moment.

Question put, and negatived.

Orders of the Day — BERMONDSEY COUNCIL (AUDITOR'S REPORT)

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]

9.46 p.m.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: The matter which I wish to raise tonight is one that I raised at Question Time on 13th March. We have not yet on the Government Front Bench a responsible Minister from the Ministry of Local Government and Planning, which is very discourteous to this House, because he has had the fullest notice for a very long time that this matter was to be raised on the Adjournment tonight. He should be here to listen and to answer to matters of principle when they are raised.

Mr. Mellish: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary did not expect the debate to come on until at least 10 o'clock. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is his business to keep in touch."] He has other jobs to do, but I understand that he is on his way here now, and I hope hon. Members will not say any more about it.

Mr. MacLeod: I will certainly comment on that, because if through inefficiency I had not been here until 10 o'clock, I should have lost this debate altogether. The business of this House goes on, and it is essential that a Minister be in his place, particularly when he has had notice and has replied to me that he would be in his place to answer on this matter for which he is responsible here.
I am not raising this matter because a Socialist mayor has used the ratepayers' money to go on a jaunt or a series of jaunts to a speedway track. I am raising it because a fundamental matter of principle is involved, affecting the relationship between the Ministry, in this case the


Ministry of Local Government and Planning, and the district auditor.
I should like to make it clear at the beginning that I know none of the people involved in this matter. I have had no discussions with them and I do not intend to mention any names. I have not been asked by the Conservative Association or anyone else to raise this matter. Does the Parliamentary Secretary wish to say something? I have told the House that I have not been asked by the Conservative Association or anyone in Bermondsey to raise this matter. If the Parliamentary Secretary likes to doubt that, he can get up and say so.
I gather that this matter first received publicity in the national Press in October or November of last year, and it came to my notice a few weeks ago when I was looking through the minutes of the London boroughs for statistics in relation to housing lists. It was then that I noticed this council meeting of 22nd November, 1950, held in Bermondsey. It was clear from what was in those minutes that the story was unfinished, and I put down some questions to the Minister of Local Government and Planning, and as a result I pursued this matter to an Adjournment.
Ever since the 1879 District Auditors Act, these officials have been employed first by the Local Government Board, then by the Ministry of Health and now by the new Ministry. Their duties are laid down in Part X of the 1933 Act. By Clause 220 the Minister can appoint and dismiss them, and by Clause 221 they are paid out of moneys provided by Parliament. It follows—I quote the leading authority on local government law—that these district auditors are civil servants but not agents of the Ministry.
In his capacity as district auditor, this official audited the accounts of the Bermondsey Council for 1948–49, and his report was published on 6th October, last year. A summary appeared in the local Press—in the "South London Press"—and perhaps I may just read the headlines, which seem to be an adequate statement of what was said:
District Auditor Castigates Overstaffed Council. Mayor Made 33 Speedway Trips in His Official Car, Finance Officials Unqualified.
The newspaper report proceeded as follows:
Sharp criticism of nearly every department of Bermondsey Council is made in the annual

report of the district auditor who has called for economies, drawn attention to the lack of qualifications by the staff and commented on the use of the mayoral car for journeys to New Cross speedway.
This matter came before the Bermondsey Council on 22nd November. They made a great number of comments, incorporated in a resolution, some of which reflected very severely on the integrity of the district auditor. They directed that copies should be sent to the Ministry and to the local Member of Parliament. It is fair to say that the Bermondsey Council—I regard it naturally as regrettable—is 100 per cent. Socialist. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Perhaps those who cheer might like to reflect on what happens in those circumstances to the ratepayers' money. This resolution is not only a council resolution but a party resolution as well. The council have taken the highly unusual step of incorporating in the minutes the speech of the chairman of the Finance Committee in which he asks that full prominence shall be given to his remarks.
Those are the facts. I should like to go into detail on one or two matters. With what the district auditor says in his comparison of departments I am not very much concerned. He draws a comparison with another Metropolitan borough which is not mentioned but which I believe is Poplar. This is a private fight between Poplar and Bermondsey into which I have not the slightest intention of entering; but when it is suggested that the district auditor did not take any account of the relative differences between the two boroughs, I would, among many other possible quotations, read this:
I made comparison of these numbers and scales with another Metropolitan borough slightly larger in area and population. After making full allowance for the fact that in that borough there are fewer properties under the control of the council, I have come to the conclusion"—
etc. There is a very distinct comparison of the services rendered in many examples in the district auditor's report.
Secondly, the district auditor comments on the accountancy system, on the fact that it takes a year for this council to present its accounts, and on the weakness of the internal audit staff, and he ends up by saying:
At the date of my audit I understand that no officer in the borough treasurer's department


possessed any of the recognised professional qualifications.
Thirdly, we come to the criticism which has attracted the most Press attention, although I do not think that because of that it is the most important in this matter, and that is the question of the mayoral car, in regard to which, leaving out names again, the district auditor said:
The entries in the log book relating to individual journeys show that between the 1st April and the 30th September, 1948, no less than 33 journeys were made to the New Cross Speedway Track.
The councillor concerned
…attended the audit and stated that on each occasion upon which he used the car to visit the New Cross Track he did so in his official capacity as Mayor. He further stated that his visit followed an invitation made either in writing or by telephone. It is recognised that the mayor is entitled to be provided with transport for all journeys associated with, or incidental to, the carrying out of his official duties, but I find difficulties in accepting that it was either necessary or desirable that the mayor should make such frequent official visits to a speedway track outside the confines of the Borough.
One might share the district auditor's opinion.
It is unnecessary, except a little on the last point, to go into details about the very long reply which the council have included in their minutes. It includes a large number of remarks about the district auditor, varying from pin-pricks to the most serious form of charges. It concludes with these statements, which I invite the House to notice:
In conclusion, we venture the opinion that some of the comments contained in the above report of the district auditor go far beyond the auditor's duty to see that the council's record of accounts is within the law and that the expenditure during the year under review was reasonable.
A little later it says:
…an expression of our view that the district auditor, in drawing comparisons between Bermondsey and another borough, has exceeded his duties and has entirely failed to make a fair comparison, and as a consequence has made most unjustifiable criticisms.

Mr. Mellish: Hear, hear.

Mr. MacLeod: I can understand that. On the question of the mayoral car, the Bermondsey Council reply:
Regarding the above comments by the district auditor on the subject of the use of the mayoral car….

the councillor—
attended our meeting and discussed the matter fully with us; and in the light of certain facts pointed out by
him—
we have scrutinised the mayoral car log book, which is intended to provide a record of all journeys. This log book, which was not seen by…
the councillor—
during his year of office, clearly shows a number of additions to the original record; and a comparison of these with the New Cross Speedway programme gives rise to the gravest doubts that we all feel—and which should have been obvious to the auditor—about the veracity of the record.
I would observe, first of all, that when the councillor attended the district auditor's examination, he made no suggestion at all—anyway nothing is included—that the number of journeys was considerably less, or less at all, than the figure of 33 given by the district auditor. The suggestion that the log book had been altered, presumably by the person in charge of the car, is extremely interesting, because after I raised the matter on 13th March I received a letter, of which I propose to read the relevant paragraphs, from the driver of the car himself. He says:
Dear Sir, I read in the South London Press dated 16.3.51 that you raised the question of the auditor's report on the Bermondsey Borough Council. I, being the chauffeur that had driven the mayor's car for 19 years, would like to point out that all entries made of journeys to New Cross Speedway in the log book during 1948 are genuine.
I wrote and asked if he was still in the employment of the Bermondsey Borough Council and he replied that he was not and that during last year—presumably during the time of the audit—he was in Canada. I find it difficult to understand why the driver of the car should bother to write to me unless he was seriously aggrieved by the accusations made by the Bermondsey Council. The last point I want to make in regard to the speech which I said was included in the minutes—

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Royle.]

Mr. MacLeod: In regard to these minutes I want to make two brief extracts


from the speech of the chairman of the Finance Committee. He says:
The Council is always ready to receive constructive criticism based on full knowledge of the facts, but the present report was entirely destructive and had no real appreciation of the true facts.
And this, above all, is the important thing:
The auditor's report lacked either intelligence or integrity.
That was the position as I knew it when, on 13th March, I brought this matter to the notice of the House. I asked the Minister what action he proposed to take. He said he did not think any action was called for by him because, if there is an appeal against any district auditor's report, he has jurisdiction. That is so, of course, under Section 229 of the Local Government Act, but that is an appeal against a surcharge and in this instance no surcharge has been made. The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), referring to certain discussions on auditing going on on the Standing Joint Council, asked:
…there has been no intention at any time, in this case, of questioning the integrity of the officer himself?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 1293.]
One can fully understand enthusiasm for supporting one's local council, but one cannot dare to say that an accusation that the auditor's report lacked either intelligence or integrity is not a reflection of the most serious character.
What can the Minister do about this, and what should he do? There are two things he can do. Under Section 236 of the Local Government Act, 1933, he can order an extraordinary audit, not necessarily by the same auditor, into any specific part of the finances that are normally the subject of a district audit. Should he use that power? I would say that the answer is "no" if this were a question of a jaunt, or a series of jaunts, in transport, because the publicity—the comments of the district auditor and, presumably, the threat of a surcharge if to be repeated—is no doubt enough to cover that situation. But when the most serious possible reflections are made on an officer of his Department, both in regard to his professional standing and his standing as a civil servant, to which he cannot reply, then I have no hesitation

in saying that the Minister must do something to clear up this matter.
There are two possible explanations. The first is that the district auditor is correct—that the journeys were made, that the driver who has written to me is correct and that the council made, well, a misguided but, say, an understandable attempt to protect an erring colleague and in that, unhappily, were led into casting most serious reflections upon a professional man. The second possibility is that the district auditor is wrong, that the driver who has written to me is wrong, and that a most serious injustice has been done to the Mayor of Bermondsey for 1948. Whichever of those explanations be true, the matter cannot be left there; whichever of those explanations is true the Minister must take this one stage further.
This brings me to the second course which the Minister can adopt, and which is the one I should like him to consider. He has been brought into this matter because the Bermondsey Council have sent him a copy of their comments on the remarks of the district auditor. I do not know what covering letter was sent with them. They may or may not have invited comment—no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us—but when that comment has gone to them, the Minister cannot allow it to remain there.
If he remains silent on this matter, then by implication he can be condoning the action of the Bermondsey Council. He can be condoning a serious reflection on an officer of his. If we agree on nothing else tonight, he will agree that one of the first principles in a matter like this is that a Ministry should protect their own servants. Either this civil servant—this district auditor—has grossly exceeded his duties, in which case he is not fit to hold the position that he holds, or alternatively, a wanton and vicious attack on the integrity of an officer of the Ministry has been made. Whichever it is, the Minister cannot, should not, and indeed dare not, leave the matter there.
I do not know whether, when the Minister replied to me on 13th March, he was in full possession of all the facts. The Parliamentary Secretary may say that he did not know the additional information—I am not talking about the driver of the car—contained in the letter which was added to the resolution and was contained


within the minutes; but knowing them as he does now, I hope that the Minister will tell the House tonight that he is taking this matter that much further, that he will not allow this position to rest as it does now, either as a reflection upon the district auditor or as a reflection upon the council. I hope we shall hear from the Minister tonight that he is prepared fully to protect the standing and integrity of a civil servant who is also a professional man.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Local Government and Planning (Mr. Lindgren): Before he sits down, would the hon. Member be good enough to let me know, as he has asked me to reply—and, of course, I will do so—the purpose of his raising this matter? To deal with the case adequately, one has to get behind it and to find out, if possible, the hon. Member's purpose in raising this matter. Is his purpose purely one of concern for the standing and status of the district auditor?

Mr. MacLeod: Surely, the purpose is perfectly clear. A council has criticised the standing and integrity of a man who cannot reply. My matter is concerned only with that. I should like to know whether the Minister thinks he should intervene in this matter to protect his official and, if he does so agree that he should intervene, what action he proposes to take.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Mellish: First, I thank the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod), for his courtesy in writing to me when he put down a Question in the House and advising me that he had done so, and for his courtesy in writing to me again when he was successful in the Ballot and informing me that he was going to raise this matter on the Floor of the House; I think I speak for all Members when I say that these common courtesies are appreciated on both sides, and I say very sincerely to the hon. Member that I am very much obliged to him.
Having said those nice things about the hon. Member, I now propose to deal with the subject matter and to say straightaway that I am not convinced that the hon. Member has come to the House and raised this matter on an Adjournment debate purely on the great principles

which he has enumerated. [Interruption.] I am entitled to my opinion and I am saying it. The local Conservative Party of Bermondsey have not at any time criticised this position. There was a by-election in my constituency only two or three weeks ago, after one of the councillors had resigned on leaving the district or for a similar reason. There was an opportunity for the local Conservative Party to challenge this position, but they did not even make a nomination.
People locally, who, after all, follow this matter—they are ratepayers and take a great interest, we assume, in local affairs—did not raise the matter at all. Evidently they are satisfied with the report given by the local council. The hon. Member for Enfield, West, however, finds sufficient time to put down a Question and to raise the matter on an Adjournment debate, and then asks us to believe that he is doing this as a non-political matter and purely out of the goodness of his heart because he is so interested in the welfare of the auditor. [HON. MEMBERS: "That proves it."] I am sure that the hon. Member will allow me to say this: that he has had no representation from the local Tory Party, who obviously lack guts and courage to raise any matter on their own account; that he must have been briefed by his own Conservative Central Office, who have asked him to raise this matter, and that he is doing it on their behalf.

Mr. MacLeod: I am very sorry, but I really must not be misrepresented on this. Of course I have not been in touch with the Conservative Central Office, or anyone else. I gave the explanation and I should have thought the hon. Member could have believed what I said. I saw, as I said, the minutes of every single borough in London and I was getting from them details about the latest housing position in London when in these minutes I noticed this matter. It had nothing whatever to do with the Conservative Central Office. I have not been in touch with them, or the secretariat, or the research department, or anybody else, and I should like the hon. Member to withdraw that.

Mr. Mellish: With great respect, like the hon. Member, I am a Member of this House and have many problems and difficulties in Bermondsey and if the Enfield Borough Council were in diffi


culties of this kind, irrespective of what their politics are—and in those I am not interested at the moment—I would not raise a matter concerning another council. I submit quite frankly, and it is important that this fact should be established, that this matter has been raised as a political argument to smear a 100 per cent. Labour borough council. Let us deal with it in that light. If hon. Members are to come down to this House and endeavour to convey that this is purely non-political—although we are a 100 per cent. Labour borough council—and that they are only concerned with the integrity of the auditor, I do not think anyone on this side of the House will agree with that.

Mr. Studholme: On a point of order. Surely it is the tradition of this House that hon. Members accept an assurance given in good faith. May I suggest that it would be only courteous that the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) should accept it.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I only deal with points of order and not with points of courtesy.

Mr. Mellish: My borough council, of which I am proud, have I believe 100 per cent. support. They have been smeared and the whole purpose of this debate is to obtain a great deal of local publicity. My council have been attacked indirectly by the hon. Member and I am not prepared to accept that this debate has been instigated from any other point of view than the political. I am the first to be courteous in this House. I am only a young Member and I tried to be courteous at the beginning of my speech by thanking the hon. Member for informing me that this matter was coming up, but this is a political matter and I am trying to deal with it as such and am going to defend my borough council when it is attacked by hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Angus Maude: Mr. Angus Maude (Ealing, South) rose—

Mr. Mellish: I did not interrupt the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod), but allowed him to say exactly what he wanted.
The district auditor came to Bermondsey, as the hon. Member admitted, and audited the accounts and on 6th October issued his report. That report was given a great deal of publicity. One principle to which my council objected strongly was that the method of audit was by comparison. The district auditor decided—he has a right to do as he likes and I do not question that right—to audit by comparison on this occasion, although he has audited for years not by that method, and he made certain strictures of various departments of the borough council.
We live in a democracy and as a council we have a right to criticise the auditor. Imagine what the position would be if it had been a Conservative council and the district auditor had come down on the eve of an election and issued such a report which was completely critical of the way in which the council conducted their affairs, and that on that basis the council fought an election before being allowed to express their point of view. It did not happen in that particular case. But my council took very strong objection—and it is the only time we have criticised this auditor—because of the method in which he audited our accounts, which was purely by comparison. The hon. Member for Enfield, West, started this row, and if I can, I am going to try to finish it by proving, at any rate, that my council were quite right in defending themselves on this issue.
It was by comparison that the district auditor decided to make these strictures on the council. He took a particular borough. The hon. Gentleman says it was Poplar. I will accept his word for it; he evidently seems to know a lot about it. Let us take one department alone, the library department. The auditor said that, as compared with this other borough, which he did not name, our library department was overstaffed and was excessive as compared with that of the other council—nothing else than that. What he did not mention—and this is so grossly unfair—was that we issued 722,000 books in Bermondsey as compared with 556,000 in this other borough.
He did not mention that in Bermondsey we have a picture collection—which they have not in the other borough—which is one of the finest of its kind in London with over 93,000 items. He did


not mention that Bermondsey, as opposed to the other borough, has a hospital library service, a linguaphone class, translation service classes, library lectures and So on, and therefore carries a larger staff, because it is doing far more work than the other borough. He merely said in his report that, compared with this other borough, the borough council of Bermondsey had spent more morey. We severely criticised him for saying that about one department as opposed to the other. Were we not entitled to say that? I think we were. I think we were entitled to defend ourselves.
Take the housing position. We were criticised by the auditor. He said that in Bermondsey the housing department expenses were greater than those in another borough. What he did not mention, and I think this ought to be said—this may be of interest to hon. Gentlemen opposite—was that in the inter-war years, about which hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like us to talk very much—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Any war?

Mr. Mellish: Just a few years ago, Bermondsey Borough Council were building in London more houses than the whole of London put together, and that was under the control of a Tory London County Council.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: I am not disputing the record of Bermondsey in its beautification, or in the number of houses it has built. With great respect that is not the point. The council have a right to disagree with the district auditor, but what I do challenge is that they have the right to call a civil servant and a professional man lacking in intelligence and integrity I hope that particular sentence will be dealt with.

Mr. Mellish: I shall deal with that. He also mentioned the case of the mayor to which I also will refer, but now I am dealing with the housing position. He compared the Bermondsey Borough Council with this one borough and on the basis of that comparison, he issued the whole of his report. I do ask hon. Gentlemen to see the importance of that. He criticised my borough council on a comparison with another council. Throughout the whole of that report he did not mention what

the other council was giving in service compared with us. We have 4,010 flats and houses as compared with 1,046, so obviously our housing department from an administrative point of view would be more expensive.
I want to deal now with the question of the mayor. Comments were made about the gentleman who was mayor of Bermondsey in 1948. The hon. Member is wrong when he says that when the district auditor interviewed the mayor for that year he did not make the comments which I am now about to mention. In fact, the ex-mayor told him that the log book was completely wrong. I do not excuse the ex-mayor for not having checked the log book, but I think it will be generally agreed that a man would have confidence in his personal chauffeur and would believe that the log book would be kept correctly.
The point is that the ex-mayor of Bermondsey who spent a considerable amount of his own money in addition to his allowance during his year of office, was accused of having been to the New Cross Speedway Track on 33 occasions. It was said that that was in the log book, and the district auditor made comments about it. It was pointed out to the district auditor at that time that there were not that number of meetings at the New Cross Speedway Track during the year in question. But there they were in the log book. Apparently the ex-mayor went to a number of meetings which did not take place. Therefore, the matter was queried.
I do not intend to claim the privilege of this House in making attacks on anyone. I respect the hon. Gentleman opposite for not mentioning anyone by name, and I shall not mention anyone by name. The person who was the chauffeur was not available to give any criticisms of the audit. The hon. Gentleman left that matter vague so that it might be thought that he was sacked.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: No.

Mr. Mellish: That is the trouble with the hon. Gentleman. He tries to put on an innocent air, but if his remarks are read in HANSARD, that is precisely what it will look like. The chauffeur for that period left the council of his own accord. He was not sacked. He collected his pension money and went to Canada.


While he was away this audit took place. It is now said that he has written to the hon. Gentleman and that he says that in fact all these entries are correct. With great respect, I say that they could not have been correct by virtue of the statement about the actual number of meetings during this period at the speedway track and the statement about the number of journeys made. Although the auditor knew this, these comments were not made. [HON. MEMBERS: "Look at the time."] This concerns my own local council.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There is also a Minister here.

Mr. Mellish: What should happen now with regard to the so-called strictures made by my council on the district auditor? I think that everyone on all sides of the House will agree that my council has the right to defend itself, and to do it so adequately that the local Tory Party has not got the guts or the courage to fight them on it as a local issue. We will take them on any time they like on this issue. They have not got the guts to do it. The hon. Member for Enfield, West, raised this matter and then he put it in a wrong light, because the council minute is as follows:
We therefore recommend—
(a) That a copy of our observations as set out above be transmitted to the Minister of Health together with an expression of our view that the District Auditor, in drawing comparisons between Bermondsey and another borough has exceeded his duties and has entirely failed to make a fair comparison, and as a consequence has made most unjustifiable criticisms.
That is a fair minute. That is what they felt, and that is what they said. This is not the first time that a district auditor has been criticised by a local council. The minute continued:
(b) That the attention of the local Member of Parliament be drawn to the matter.
That was the minute: nothing more or less than that. But, of course, it is regretted that the leader of the council in his comments said this:
The auditor's report lacked either intelligence or integrity.
I say sincerely that there was never any intention on the part of the leader of the council to question the personal integrity of the individual as such. No one doubts that. He has acted as auditor for our council for a great many years.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: What is personal integrity?

Mr. Mellish: Frankly, it was an expression saying that there was no intelligence or integrity in the auditor and that the report, as such, was not fair to Bermondsey. No one is questioning the man himself, except to say that the report, as published, was indeed most damaging to the council, which has one of the finest records of any council in London and is a 100 per cent. Labour council, which the Conservative Party even today would not dare to decry.

10.26 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Local Government and Planning (Mr. Lindgren): I am sure that the House will acquit me of not replying fully to this debate, because the time is so short. It is quite right that my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), Who represents that borough, should adequately deal with this matter, and I think that he really has done so.
This debate really falls into two sections. One concerns the question of the powers and functions of the district auditor and his relationship to the Minister, and the other concerns the Bermondsey Borough Council. I should have liked to have dealt much more fully with the question of the district auditor and his functions and relationships, but, in case I am accused of dodging the issue, may I first deal with the Bermondsey Council and come back to the district auditor?
The district auditor carried out his audit and presented his report on the audit for 1948–49 for the Borough of Bermondsey, and that report, in fact, makes certain criticisms of the administration of the borough. That was within the general functions of the district auditor, and so was it to make certain suggestions to remedy defects which he saw in the administration. He does that very thing in all local authorities, from parish councils to county councils, and it is a requirement that the council should consider his report. The council did consider that report, and the Minister, at the same time as the Council and the public, is furnished with the auditor's report. The council also favoured the Minister with their observations on the auditor's report.
Let me say quite frankly that these observations, which were received by the Minister as the formal observations of Bermondsey Council acting as a council, were couched in the most correct language, and did not cast the slightest reflection on the district auditor in any way and were absolutely correct and proper from their point of view.
Now, the hon. Gentleman referred to the question of a member of the council and his observations, and he referred to the fact that a member of the council, in his speech, said that the district auditor either lacked intelligence or integrity. [Interruption.] He said, "either, or." It would have been quite in accordance with good Parliamentary style for my hon. Friend to have said of the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod) that he lacked both intelligence and integrity.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: I could defend that.

Mr. Lindgren: It would be equally wrong for me, speaking for the Govern-

ment, to say that. Therefore, one has to take into account the circumstances. If a member of the council is speaking in open council debate, that is one thing, but if, within a resolution moved and recorded, a council says the same thing as a council, then that is something entirely different, and if the hon. Gentleman really expects my hon. Friend to follow Press reports of any and every tuppenny ha'penny council from one end of the country to the other in regard to anybody, then that is something which I really cannot think he intends us to believe. Speaking as a member of the Government, I am prepared to say—

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Ten o'Clock.